rEvolutionist wrote:Here's your most recent fuckups:
MS wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
That would be because we're not talking about assumptions, as I've corrected you on multiple times to which you haven't responded.
Stop lying. Of course I've responded. I've asked you a number of times now to explain why they aren't assumptions and why they are truths.
And I explained. Stop lying. Either respond to them or stop making shit up.
No you didn't. I'm 99.8% sure you didn't explain what I asked (and had asked a number of times before). If you think you did, then link this explanation.
How is that a fuckup? If you aren't happy with the explanation I've given then you need to ask for a clarification, as far as I know I have responded and explained. What you're saying is that
I haven't explained to your satisfaction, which is an entirely different claim. The explanations (multiple) are mostly found
here. So to clarify, your claim was that logic can't tell us anything about reality because it's based solely on validity and not the truth of premises, I correct you:
Which is a comment about reality. Are you telling me that demonstrating a claim about reality to logically impossible doesn't tell us anything about whether reality would look like that logically impossible claim?
It tells us what science can do in regards to reality, which is knowledge about reality (i.e. that it isn't accessible by science).
Of course it fucking does. It's a claim about reality that is being supported. That's something about reality.
You either need to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say and word it properly, or stop this ridiculous word game where justified claims about reality suddenly don't have anything to say about reality. By definition it must be true that justified claims about reality tell us something about reality.
Why do you think it provides no probability assessments? You judge the positions on the weight of the evidence. Not all positions are shown to be logically incoherent, they can simply be problematic or fail to fully account for the same kinds of data that other theories explain better, and so they are weighted accordingly.
You're missing the point and there is no "gotcha" crap. You claimed that "without empiricism no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other". Presenting two concepts, one that is a logical impossibility and the other a logical possibility, with no empirical content, you are forced to say that each are equally likely based on your commitment to empiricism.
However, of course it's fucking ridiculous to think that they are both equally likely - one is impossible! And that's why your claim is wrong.
It does more than that, as I've demonstrated and hopefully you'll reply in depth to some of them at some point, but even if the only thing it did was to discard illogical claims about reality - that's telling us something about reality! How the fuck can it not?
The probability comes from the strength of the evidence, its explanatory power, its coherence, and a whole host of other things.
Logical consistency is only one small part of it, and again we have no need to know anything about reality because metaphysics also includes claims about what can be known (as you should well know by this point).
Logic of claims about reality tell us about reality. If substance dualism is logically impossible then we know that reality cannot look like that. How is this not getting through to you?
It's not an empty assertion, it's something which is true by definition. There is no working needed to be done there, it is necessarily true.
Do you see how worthless your responses are now? You are arguing against things that are simply true by definition. Your only response is to say that you don't like the label that has been chosen to describe those terms.
So you think logical impossibilities could be real?
The only reason I haven't been able to fill out huge details is because in this thread I've been bogged down trying to get very simple issues across. Like the fact that a logical impossibility must have an impact on what reality looks like.
All of the above are comments about the question of assumptions and truth of claims, which is why I suggested that the only reason you thought the question wasn't answered was because you didn't understand the topic well enough to ask what you really wanted to ask.
rEvolutionist wrote:And as I said here in the next paragraph, your own words condemn you as lying:
And you do realise your Sethism there, right? You've shifted the goalposts from you claiming that I didn't respond, to you claiming I am lying. I'm not lying, but I could have missed your explanations of why they are truths (I honestly doubt it, but it could be possible). But that doesn't address your lie that I haven't responded to your original claim. In fact you've fallen for a great Sethism in by shifting the goalposts and thinking you were going to deflect from your lie, you actually proved that you were lying. After all, how you could have "explained" my questions in response if I never responded to your original claim?
Well done, Seth!
But that accusation makes absolutely no sense - how have I moved the goalposts? You made a comment about it being based on assumptions and I explained how they weren't. You hadn't responded to my explanations. Saying that you've ask for explanations when you're responding to my explanation is nonsensical.
Also, I like how you explain that you aren't lying and that you may have simply missed my explanations, and yet when I've made the same comments back to you it's because I'm misrepresenting you and lying.
rEvolutionist wrote:Next on the list:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote: '
Stop lying, naughty boy. I've responded to it multiple times now, including the first time you raised it.
As demonstrated, you replied once after multiple requests for you to respond. You definitely didn't respond the first time I asked, it was the third time of asking.
This post here:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... m#p1568938 was the first time you mentioned substance dualism to me. I RESPONDED TO IT IN THE VERY NEXT POST!! So were you purposely lying here, or just mistaken?
No, the question I asked that is relevant in that post was this one: "But I'm still interested in hearing exactly how you think empiricism could be relevant. Suppose that idealism is true and the world is a product of the imaginations of disembodied minds and that nothing physical at all exists - how do you use empiricism to support this claim?"
To which you replied with: "You wouldn't. But if physicalism* was true, then empiricism could be telling us something about the true nature of reality." which isn't even an answer to the question asked.
I try to link it back to your actual point and generously interpret it as an answer: "In other words, empiricism is useless unless we first demonstrate that empiricism is relevant using non-empirical methods.", and then rephrase the question for you again here: "I'm not sure where to start if you don't accept that metaphysical investigations have told us anything. Do you believe that substance dualism is just as likely as physicalism (i.e. that it's just as likely that we're controlled by a disembodied mind as it is that we're controlled by natural physical processes of the brain)? If not, the reasons you give will be based on evidence gathered and generated by metaphysicians. "
You reply with this: "No, in the original words by myself and many in this (and/or the other) thread, we don't know whether it is useless or spot on. We have to be agnostic about it. And that means that we have to accept the fact that empiricism may potentially offer us some insights into "reality"." which again didn't answer the question, and then this "Why would I say that they aren't as equally likely (from a metaphysical point of view)?? If we exclude empirical observations, which we must if we are trying to make claims about reality, then there is simply nothing to go by to accept one position over the other. I have absolutely no way of telling which one is more likely than the other. " which was finally an answer.
So are you lying here or are you just mistaken?
rEvolutionist wrote:Next:
Avail yourself of a dictionary, Man!! Do I need to show how wrong you are with any more than that??
I don't trust you with dictionaries, you think "could" has the definition of being its opposite.
rEvolutionist wrote:Just in case, here's the reason why I said what I said:
Oh hello Seth. Lamenting is not criticising. Get a fucking dictionary, man. STAT! As I said, I am more to blame for the length of the posts as I have contributed the most text. But you ignored this point. Seth. The reason why it's most annoying is as I stated and a point you specifically ignored to make it look like I was criticising you for the length of the posts. That point was that I have spend an interminable amount of time going back and cross referencing things you say against the bits you didn't bother to quote. Stop being a disingenuous twat. As I said, you aren't dealing with the usual crowd at ratskep. You can't get away with this idiocy against me. I will call it out and I will post about it until the heat death of the universe.
I would never try to get away with idiocy against you Rev - you know what they say, idiots will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
rEvolutionist wrote:Next:
rEvolutionist wrote:Ok, lets have some more fun now. I've found some of the relevant quotes where you claimed I was lying or telling an untruth or misrepresenting or mistaken or whatever you want to call it.
Mr.Samsa at 12:47pm 1/7 wrote:
rEvolutionist at 11:43am 1/7 wrote:You made an assertion and when asked to explain your working you ignore it. THAT's what I want to know about? Why won't you guys answer this question?? What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?
You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.
Unfortunately for you, that's bollocks.
The post I was referring to (which wasn't the one you 'linked to above'), was written 12 hours before (
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568980). 9 hours after that you ignored my post and responded (
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1569072) to one from piscator which was written after my post. Note, this post of yours was BEFORE my post above where you claimed you hadn't ignored any of my requests for more information.
So it's not actually a case of "The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to." It's a case of you lying or being mistaken about the conversation flow across the two threads. I'm perfectly happy to accept that it was the latter, but in the spirit of hyperbolic accusations of the type you continuously make, I choose to exclaim that you are a foul liar sir! Of the most fulminating order!!
Two points:
1) I replied to your post here (as linked above):
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568961 (About an hour after your post).
2) I then went to bed, because it was late. I went to work the next morning, saw some updates and responded to a short post because I was at work and didn't have time to reply to all of your posts. I got home and responded to you straight away. That is the
opposite of ignoring you.
rEvolutionist wrote:Next:
rEvolutionist wrote:More fun:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
4) You ask me why I believe that science describes reality.
5) I bang my face into the desk again.
I hope you'll appreciate why it's us who should be banging our face into the desk. This is what you said that led to this point:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
I'm not sure how your point still stands, as my refutation still stands.
You specifically stated that you don't understand how my point (that "science doesn't attempt to explain reality") could still stand after your refutation (which refuted nothing, and certainly not that science doesn't attempt to explain reality). You can see this, right? This isn't me twisting your words. You specifically stated that my point shouldn't be standing. Hello.
Eta: Fuck, there's even more clangers in there! You state in 4) that i asked you why you believe that science describes reality. I asked no such thing! This is what I asked:
What refutation?
Are you claiming that science attempts to explain reality?? If so, that's bonkers.
That should be enough for now. I await your torturous squirming in abusing the English language and the field of logic.
[/quote]
Your understanding of English is terrible. Are you claiming that this wasn't a pointed question: "Are you claiming that science attempts to explain reality??". Do you regularly use double question marks and exaggeration to innocently inquire into what someone thinks? Of course not, it was a question with a very clear assumption and you'd simply be lying to ignore that.
Anyway, I give up. Most of your complaints revolve around you misrepresenting me further or simply abusing the dictionary to claim that words literally mean the opposite of what the dictionary says.
I shouldn't have fucking give in again because this is really not healthy for you. Get some sleep or something if you're not going to go see a professional.
[EDIT: And it's shit shows like this why it's ridiculous to include multiple quotes].
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
Of course, not, Samsa. You are never wrong.