Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Don't be insulted, this really is just fun and games, to keep one sharp, on their toes. I used to get mad, but usually only when one called me names. As long as one doesn't call me names, I'm good! You know, like idiot, moron, brain dead, etc. Pretty much I'm immune these days unless I'm not feeling so good.

But I resent being told what to do, usually doing quite the opposite.

alpha wrote:well, things like "screw you". and "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" are insults.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So is "...just because some random person somewhere in the mountains might believe it is so." Which is what came first, shall we continue to traverse what was said from end to beginning? The way in which we descended into anarchy, the tit for tat escalation. Of course, you'll obviously take no blame, it's an ego thing, and seems to be apparent at this point. What say you? Worthless or worthwhile?

i take it that you thought that by "some random person somewhere in the mountains" i meant you. i didn't mean you. i meant "some random person somewhere in the mountains". you insulted me based on your misinterpretation of my statement.

He's rather good at that. This is why I have him on ignore. My time here is less wasted than it once was.

Nice ploy, but I'll not fall for it.

In fact any time that you spend anywhere shall always be wasted.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In fact any time that you spend anywhere shall always be wasted.

that's quite a non-relative statement there, spheres.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In fact any time that you spend anywhere shall always be wasted.

that's quite a non-relative statement there, spheres.

I told you that me and HC have tread on each other quite a bit over time, it's between he and I, not you and I. Unless you want to be the middle man, not a very fun place to be.

Anyway, it was in fact relative! HC's abilities, relative to all the rest of humanities. You see? You can have absolutism 'and' relativism in the very same breath, not necessarily 'either/or.'

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In fact any time that you spend anywhere shall always be wasted.

that's quite a non-relative statement there, spheres.

I told you that me and HC have tread on each other quite a bit over time, it's between he and I, not you and I. Unless you want to be the middle man, not a very fun place to be.

Anyway, it was in fact relative! HC's abilities, relative to all the rest of humanities. You see? You can have absolutism 'and' relativism in the very same breath, not necessarily 'either/or.'

i see. you were taking a shot at hc. you should've emphasized the "you" in that sentence, to prevent confusion.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In fact any time that you spend anywhere shall always be wasted.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote: that's quite a non-relative statement there, spheres.

I told you that me and HC have tread on each other quite a bit over time, it's between he and I, not you and I. Unless you want to be the middle man, not a very fun place to be.

Anyway, it was in fact relative! HC's abilities, relative to all the rest of humanities. You see? You can have absolutism 'and' relativism in the very same breath, not necessarily 'either/or.'

i see. you were taking a shot at hc. you should've emphasized the "you" in that sentence, to prevent confusion.

Do you understand the hierarchy of the thread quoting system. I quoted HC's message, not yours. That yours was contained within his, was just coincidence. Are you starting to become gun shy, believing that my aim is always at you? Relax, you're not my only target! Some things you say make a little sense.

alpha wrote:i see. you were taking a shot at hc. you should've emphasized the "you" in that sentence, to prevent confusion.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you understand the hierarchy of the thread quoting system. I quoted HC's message, not yours. That yours was contained within his, was just coincidence. Are you starting to become gun shy, believing that my aim is always at you? Relax, you're not my only target! Some things you say make a little sense.

you've misunderstood me yet again. i thought by "you" you meant everyone, not just me or hc.

alpha wrote:

alpha wrote:i see. you were taking a shot at hc. you should've emphasized the "you" in that sentence, to prevent confusion.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you understand the hierarchy of the thread quoting system. I quoted HC's message, not yours. That yours was contained within his, was just coincidence. Are you starting to become gun shy, believing that my aim is always at you? Relax, you're not my only target! Some things you say make a little sense.

you've misunderstood me yet again. i thought by "you" you meant everyone, not just me or hc.

The real question is, is it my conveyance or your comprehension that's at fault. Of course it's your comprehension!

As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The real question is, is it my conveyance or your comprehension that's at fault. Of course it's your comprehension!

naturally.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

again, you fail to understand how logic actually works. it has nothing to do with investigations. a logical deduction is valid (if there is no way to disprove the premises). saying things like "we don't know yet" won't invalidate it.

if a claim is has nothing to do with science, it shouldn't be possible to scientifically disprove it. rt's premises have nothing to do with science, hence, no amount of scientific research or investigation can disprove any of his premises.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The real question is, is it my conveyance or your comprehension that's at fault. Of course it's your comprehension!

naturally.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to the topic at hand, RT cannot state his premises and thus conclusion, as if it's certainly the case, as scientists might change the content of his premises. I'm saying that, "...there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

again, you fail to understand how logic actually works. it has nothing to do with investigations. a logical deduction is valid unless proven (not speculated) otherwise. saying things like "we don't know yet" might work where science is concerned, but not with logic.

You are dead wrong alpha, did you notice that I quoted something? Here, Read this and weep. Look for the passage that I've highlighted above in red. It came from RG1's argument that mine was an 'argument from ignorance,' which it wasn't. My argument actually supports that which the rules of informal logic offer as acceptable argument. You need to brush up on your understanding of logic. You have "absolutely" no way out of this one. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You are dead wrong alpha, did you notice that I quoted something? Here, Read this and weep. Look for the passage that I've highlighted above in red. It came from RG1's argument that mine was an 'argument from ignorance,' which it wasn't. My argument actually supports that which the rules of informal logic offer as acceptable argument. You need to brush up on your understanding of logic. You have "absolutely" no way out of this one. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

for once you are right, but not completely. i concede that my post was worded poorly. i'll revise it accordingly.

raw_thought wrote:It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
1. Cause always precedes effect.
2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

one can put it this way:

1. consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.
2. Cause always precedes effect.
3. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
4. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

which premise(s) do you dispute, spheres? or do you accept all premises (doubtfully) but reject the conclusion?

Alpha. You commit a common logical error by conflating consciousness with awareness. Consciousness is a PROCESS and it is simply a generic term for all acts of cognition but awareness is a specific term for one's observation of such acts. Clearly one can't observe something until after it's already occurred so we can't be aware of a thought until after we've already thought it, but this act of observation can then operate as a causal agent in directing the cognitive process. Perhaps a a basic text on cognitive neuroscience might help you understand that neurally networked computation is non-linear and thus non-Newtonian. In non-Newtonian systems causation operates both top-down and bottom up throughout networked causal hierarchies.