My brain does not compute.

[attofishpi]

[Age]

you obviously are completely lost and confused here, right.

[Skepdick]

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

Sure. If. And else?

How would you know IF the child knew? How do you distinguish a false promise from a best intention?

Why the f' is everyone complicating something so simple

Because the claim of "simplicity" requires you to be a mind reader. It requires perfect information.

[attofishpi]

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

Sure. If. And else?

ELSE = definitely ONE lie.

Why the f' is everyone complicating something so simple

How would you know IF the child knew? How do you distinguish a false promise from a best intention?

Because the claim of "simplicity" requires you to be a mind reader. It requires perfect information.

Skeppy, stop trying to make me think...I've got better things to do, like stick my boot into an evil ideology (which takes far less cognitive dissonance).

[Skepdick]

ELSE = definitely ONE lie.

Great! So you agree that "I will never tell lies again" is NOT itself a lie.

Otherwise you would've counted TWO lies.

2 != 1 and all that jazz.

Skeppy, stop trying to make me think...I've got better things to do, like stick my boot into an evil ideology (which takes far less cognitive dissonance).

If you can't even distinguish a lie from a non-lie - why should we trust you to distinguish evil from non-evil?

[attofishpi]

ELSE = definitely ONE lie.

Great! So you agree that "I will never tell lies again" is NOT itself a lie.

Otherwise you would've counted TWO lies.

2 != 1 and all that jazz.

Skeppy, stop trying to make me think...I've got better things to do, like stick my boot into an evil ideology (which takes far less cognitive dissonance).

If you can't even distinguish a lie from a non-lie - why should we trust you to distinguish evil from non-evil?

Where am I not distinguishing a lie from a non-lie. A lie is not ambiguous it either is or isn't, binary.

Thus, and again:

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

If the argument is going to come back to LuckyR statement that we cannot KNOW the future, then forget it - that's the point that 'philosophy' gets on my no no, it grinds my gears as Peter Griffin would say.

[Skepdick]

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 liess

Contradiction.

No.2 is the necessary conditional which renders No.1 true.

UNTIL the child tells a lie the statement "I will never tell lies again" remains true.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

If 2 never happens - 1 isn't a lie.

So the child hasn't lied even once.

[Skepdick]

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

That's just incoherent, buddy.

Suppose that the child knowingly and intentionally tells the lie "I will never lie again".
The child then proceeds into the future. No lie is told.

The child never lied in the first place!

[attofishpi]

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

That's just incoherent, buddy.

Suppose that the child knowingly and intentionally tells the lie "I will never lie again".
The child then proceeds into the future. No lie is told.

The child never lied in the first place!

READ THE PREMISE: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"

[Skepdick]

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

That's just incoherent, buddy.

Suppose that the child knowingly and intentionally tells the lie "I will never lie again".
The child then proceeds into the future. No lie is told.

The child never lied in the first place!

READ THE PREMISE: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"

Read your own response...

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

But you have no evidence for this being a lie. Your lie-counter is wrong.

As far as you are allowed to know: 0 lies have been told so far.
And as far as the child can claim: They haven't told a lie yet. Until their intent is stratified with a lie.

At this exact point in your reasoning your lie-counter is at 0!

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

Uttering "AGAIN" with lie-counter = 0 is a contradiction until the intent has been stratified with a lie.

Only once a lie has been told can the original promise can be counted as a lie too. But no sooner.

= 2 lies.

Hence the contradiction.

You can answer 0. After event 1 and before event 2.
You can answer 2. After event 2.

There's no point at which you can claim....

definitely ONE lie

[attofishpi]

That's just incoherent, buddy.

Suppose that the child knowingly and intentionally tells the lie "I will never lie again".
The child then proceeds into the future. No lie is told.

The child never lied in the first place!

READ THE PREMISE: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"

Read your own response...

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

But you have no evidence for this being a lie. Your lie-counter is wrong.

Evidence? The child KNEW it was going to lie in the future. (the EVIDENCE is in the child's BRAIN).

LIE COUNT = 1.

[Skepdick]

Evidence? The child KNEW it was going to lie in the future. (the EVIDENCE is in the child's BRAIN).

Yes, I know exactly where the evidence is. It's NOT in your head.

How did you become omniscient?

Because the claim of "simplicity" requires you to be a mind reader. It requires perfect information.

LIE COUNT = 1.

How did you obtain the evidence in order to increment this counter?

How would you know IF the child knew? How do you distinguish a false promise from a best intention?

[attofishpi]

Evidence? The child KNEW it was going to lie in the future. (the EVIDENCE is in the child's BRAIN).

Yes, I know exactly where the evidence is. It's NOT in your head.

How did you become omniscient?

Because the claim of "simplicity" requires you to be a mind reader. It requires perfect information.

LIE COUNT = 1.

How did you obtain the evidence in order to increment this counter?

How would you know IF the child knew? How do you distinguish a false promise from a best intention?

It's got nothing to do with my POV regarding EVIDENCE Skeppy - it's the GRAND MASTER of the system we are in. A LIE is a LIE --> IT existed in the child's brain.

Now wot?

[Skepdick]

It's got nothing to do with my POV regarding EVIDENCE Skeppy - it's the GRAND MASTER of the system we are in. A LIE is a LIE --> IT existed in the child's brain.

Contradiction.

LIE COUNT = 1.

You can answer 0. After event 1 and before event 2.
You can answer 2. After event 2.

There's no point at which you can claim....

definitely ONE lie

[Skepdick]

It's got nothing to do with my POV regarding EVIDENCE Skeppy - it's the GRAND MASTER of the system we are in. A LIE is a LIE --> IT existed in the child's brain.

The intention to tell a lie in future existed, absolutely.

Just like the intention to call you an idiot currently exists in my head.

Have I called you an idiot?