The Philosophy Discussion Forum

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:14 pm You two realize that you completely switched positions. Both of you took up the other's.

This is precisely how Auman's agreement theorem is meant to work.

As explained in this video

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 1:00 pm It seems, according to the professor, that the real cause of the World’s changing climate and weather patterns is, in fact, an abundance of human souls trapped in the stratosphere.

If you tilt your head and squint your eyes a little, that's the same thing Scientologists say.

First show a moral assertion such as 'murder is wrong' makes a knowledge-claim. Peter. Are you sure you don't suffer from Alzheimer's? I told you this last week already . It's exactly the same counter-argument as the one you are making! Both sentences have an identical grammatical and semantic stru...

1 If people believe murder is morally wrong, then the murder rate falls. (Empirical evidence.) So 'murder is morally wrong' is a fact. 2 If people believe murder is not morally wrong, then the murder rate rises. (Empirical evidence.) So 'murder is not morally wrong' is a fact. Strawman. Not everyth...

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:48 am You have a great ability of twisting things around, and then actually believing in your own distorted thinking.

Once again, you have completely missed the mark.

I guess you are terrible at drawing the mark.

But I would be lying if I said I am interested in engaging you further.

Univalence has to wriggle to avoid the contradictions in its argument. It has entertainment value. Well, that's a double-standard. Ignores numerous contradictions in his own argument. Focuses on "contradictions" in mine. Let me remind you that contradictions are immaterial to an empiricis...

Univalence believes that 'nothing is mind-independent'. Strawman. We SAY that things are mind-independent (even though knowledge is never mind-independent) when things are testable/reproducible/falsifiable. And I have told you (at least 10 times now) how to empirically test/reproduce/falsify the wr...

Do you know you keep having to explain "What X is" BEFORE you can explain "How X behaves"? No. I am not doing that. But if you have somehow understood what X is from the indecipherable string of characters I offered, I guess it's clear you are easy to please. Therefore, the ques...

The difference between factual and non-factual assertions, such as moral and aesthetic ones, has nothing to do with who produces them This is a faulty premise. It hints to the religion of mind-independence, ignoring the fact that all knowledge is product of minds. The similarity between all asserti...

By the way, considering your logic you could only go on for 26 times before you would circle back again anyway. You don't know how to invent new symbols beyond the ones you were given? What is Z? ▲ What is ▲? ⍌ What is ⍌ ? 字 What is 字 ? Щ What is Щ ? 🤮 Also, did you know you can combine symbols to ...

No such methodology exists simply because philosophical questions cannot be answered You are going around in circles and your answer is demonstrably incorrect. There exists a machine for answering ALL questions. I call it a coin. So back to my question: is philosophy's objective to ask questions wh...

What is a lie? Isn't a lie that which contradicts what is true? You are denying your own argument. You are deflecting. It doesn't matter what I deny or claim. It doesn't even matter what I say. I am not arguing - I am demonstrating. I am simply pointing you to a fact of reality. Contradictions exis...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:59 pm Phenomenon.

Then your conception of "noumenon" is the same as saying "empirically inconsequential". Inert. Undetectable.

And so it begs the question again: How would you detect any such thing, and if you can't how would you ever come to identify it, or talk about it?

If this is an appeal to philosophers, shouldn't you first define "Computational Complexity" at least? Over-simplified. Computational complexity asks two questions: 1. Can this question be answered in principle and how? (produce an algorithm) 2. How much resources would it take to answer i...

I think Kant would say they were from the "categories of the understanding" by which we organize experience. Then perhaps we should avoid categorizing our "undedrstanding" least we fall for category errors? It could just be me. I don't see any categories out in the world, so the...