|
Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/14/2011 10:24:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:
Nobody noticed that I don't have a nose. Therefor, everybody who gives thought to whether I have a nose or not believes that I have a nose
Even if you corrected your sentence eliminating the "absolutely irrevocable", it is still wrong.
A philosph who thinks that everything is an illusion (and does not think that the illusion of a nose is a nose) will still think that you have no nose. For example.
A person who decides not believe anything, will not believe that you have a nose.
And in our context, very particularly, if you decide that you do not want to affirm that you have a nose, you are free not to affirm it. Even if you haven't noticed any removal.
It is up to you.
Therefore, your reasoning is still wrong.
Correct, please.
I will not alter logically reasoned arguments just because you tell me to so, especially when you've provided no argument whatsoever as to why my reasoning is wrong.
It it completely irrelevant whether or not somebody who thinks that everything is an illusion thinks I've got a nose. A person who doesn't believe in anything wouldn't have asserted that they have a nose in the first place, so their opinion is irrelevant to the line of questions you've set on.
The fact is that, in both scenarios, using the English definition of the word "nose" I have a nose.
Maybe you should look up the definition for the word "nose" because you seem to think that the definition of a nose somehow implies something about it's origin.
If I have an accident and loose my nose, and get a prosthetic or a nose transplant, I would still have a nose.
It wouldn't be my original nose, it might not even be an organic nose, but it would still be "a" nose.
If my nose is missing, and all I have is the illusion of having a nose to replace it, I would still have a nose.
The nose may exist only in my own mind and the minds of others, but it would function, feel and behave exactly as a nose would and would therefore be "a" nose.
Unless there is a gaping hole in my face where my nose should be, that's detectable to me and others (which is excluded from your definition of Ishoser, because it would make me aware of the fact that he took it away) I have a nose.
What that nose is comprised of doesn't matter, because as long as me and there rest of the world perceive it to be there, it IS there for the purpose of defining what a nose is.
You seem to think that my original nose is a nose by the essence of it being "a" nose. It's not.
The only think that makes my original nose a nose is the fact that everybody in the English language has by convention agreed to call it a nose.
I could have a tulip sticking out of my face, which Ishoser used as a replacement when he took my original nose, and that tulip would still be "a" nose, because due to the fact that Ishoser works undetectable to human beings, the tulip sticking out of my face would be perceived and described by everybody as being "a" nose, which would in turn, by convention, make it "a" nose.
Things aren't their names because they are associated with that name by the very essence of their being; they are their names because their name happens to be how we have decided to describe them.
Something described by a certain name becomes that name, and the name becomes it.
Names don't have magical properties that describe things in an absolute sense; a name is nothing more then a generally agreed upon description within a certain context.
It's why I've pointed out to you earlier that context is of such importance for arguments like these, because unless all participants are using the same naming convection to describe the same thing, it just ends up being an endless useless debate of semantics because everybody is using the same word to talk about a completely different concept.
So unless you want to change the definition of what you consider to be a nose, such as including into the definition that it needs to be my own, original, organic nose, it doesn't matter what it's replaced with after Ishoser took it away, it's still "a" nose.
I don't need to change my affirmation of the fact that I have a nose. I know I have a nose, it's there, I can see it, I can use it, others can see it and touch it and will confirm to you that I do indeed have a nose.
I don't know if you're struggling with this concept because of translation issues or if it's a problem of conceptualization, but I can assure you that according to the definition of a nose and according to your definition of Ishoser working undetectable to humans, I have a nose, regardless of whether Ishoser took it away or not.
You're not going to be able to sway my argument in this matter, especially not considering the fact that you haven't actually presented a single logical argument as to why the replacement nose I would perceive to have after Ishoser stole my original nose wouldn't be a nose according to the definition of what a nose is. So unless you can explain to me why it's necessary that my nose is the original to be considered "a" nose, or unless you want to change the definition of what "a" nose is for the purpose of this game, I guess we're stuck.
However, even if we're stuck, I would like to continue the game to see where it leads, so I'm willing to change my answer into one I don't agree with for the sole purpose of continuing the game, if that's acceptable to you. If not, I guess we're at the end of things.
So for the purpose of continued play:
Yes, I have a nose, therefore I can affirm that Ishoser does not exist, and my previous answer stating that I couldn't affirm Ishoser doesn't exist was wrong.
|
|
|
|
