RE: A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 7:08:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

The problem here is that Plato would not agree with you..

No, of course not. Whatever you say.

"...may I be of a sound mind, and do to others as I would that they should do to me." ~Laws, XI, The Dialogues

Pay special attention to that "sound mind" part, because it is the crux of my argument and the flaw in yours. And no, I'm not being snarky. The cranky professor you quoted with respect to Kant makes the same mistake (the refutations of which you've neglected to consider or report). So, of course, he makes the same argument you propose:

With the Golden rule a masochist or a sadist would be justified in causing or receiving pain.

Per Kant, he says, a better rule would be:

Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.

But, and here's the thing, that's exactly how people of "sound mind" understand the Golden Rule. They realize that it must be taken in the broad human context. You and your cranky professor read it concretistically, as if it was a program for a robot, and then get all sanctimonious about it because it would violate the First Law.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 8:52:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
So, no, I do not agree with your statement.


Hello, Zonie.

I am sorry, but that was pure logic.

You agreed, that if Azonier exists, you have no nose.

That is automatically, per pure rules of logic, exactly the same as to say, that if you have a nose, Azonier does not exist.

You cannot agree with one and not the other, or disagree with one and not the other.

I do not know what "problem" you are speaking about.

It Azonier exists, you have no nose (you agreed).

Therefore, automatically, if you have a nose, Azonier does not exist.

The name of the rule is modus tollendo tollens, for the case that you are interested.

So... whether you change your previous move and now you disagree with "If Azonier exists, you have no nose" or you should agree with "If I have a nose, Azonier does not exist".

I wait.



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 9:35:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
So, no, I do not agree with your statement.


Hello, Zonie.

I am sorry, but that was pure logic.

You agreed, that if Azonier exists, you have no nose.

That is automatically, per pure rules of logic, exactly the same as to say, that if you have a nose, Azonier does not exist.

You cannot agree with one and not the other, or disagree with one and not the other.

I do not know what "problem" you are speaking about.

It Azonier exists, you have no nose (you agreed).

Therefore, automatically, if you have a nose, Azonier does not exist.

The name of the rule is modus tollendo tollens, for the case that you are interested.

So... whether you change your previous move and now you disagree with "If Azonier exists, you have no nose" or you should agree with "If I have a nose, Azonier does not exist".

I wait.



Well, okay, let's back up a bit. According to the parameters and definitions which you established, here's what we have:

A = Azonier does exist
B = Azonier does not exist

C = My nose may or may not exist, since it could be a substitute nose provided by Azonier, but I would not be aware of it and continue thinking that I still had a nose

D = My nose does not exist
E = My nose does exist


So, what you've given me is, if A or B, the answer must always be C.

D or E are not even available options, given the parameters that you've outlined.

There is not enough information to determine whether or not I actually have a nose. You've precluded the possibility of me being able to trust my own eyes when I look in the mirror and see that I have a nose. I don't see any logic to that, since it defies real world physics as we know it.





GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 9:45:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
And given that you seem to be capable of expressing your whining and insults effectively


It's your behavior Kirata, I'm still mirroring it back to you. Anytime you want it to stop, just stop. But I guess you prefer to whine about it.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 10:02:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

It's your behavior Kirata, I'm still mirroring it back to you.

No you're not. That would require you to be honest.

K.



MadAxeman -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 10:27:16 AM)

I don't know about noses being relevant or not, but my arse has died reading this exercise in futility.

If there was a God, surely he would stop me?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 11:35:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Well, okay, let's back up a bit.
(...)
You've precluded the possibility of me being able to trust my own eyes when I look in the mirror and see that I have a nose.


Hello, Zonie63.

Please note that the only thing I actually did, was to define a potential being. The rest was pure logic.
Please note, in particular, that it was not necessary, for me, to say that Azonier exists.
Please note that "nose" is here only an arbitary sample, and nothing prevents me or you to define beings related to (almost?) any other thing you seem to percieve in the universe.

If you disagree with any of this, please say it instead of continuing. Thank you.

Now, if you agree... please answer the following questions:

* Do you have hands?
* Do you have a computer?
* Does the USA exist?
* Are you a human being?

If you realise that, unless you change your way of thinking, you must now answer "maybe" (or very similar) to any of these questions, you will be more near winning the game, as any other participant at this point.

Best regards.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 12:17:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.

But, and here's the thing, that's exactly how people of "sound mind" understand the Golden Rule. They realize that it must be taken in the broad human context. You and your cranky professor read it concretistically, as if it was a program for a robot, and then get all sanctimonious about it because it would violate the First Law.



What I've personally never liked about the Golden Rule and it's variations is that it necessarily needs to be implemented by people of a "sound mind" for it to make a "good" ethical system.
Once somebody who is not of a "sound mind" like Hitler (yes yes Hitler in a forum argument, I know...) uses the same rule, the results are disastrous. Hitler could be deemed totally ethical when using only the Golden Rule as a standard, and somehow, that doesn't sit well with me.

I've always felt that for ethics to be "rules" instead of "guidelines" they need to be solid enough that they can be applied by any person in any context and still hold up to their original goal. The Golden Rule, from that perspective, is a great guideline, but hardly the universal rule the tittle wants to imply it is.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 12:37:04 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
This is a non sequitur = The "therefore" is wrong = From the first sentence, the second cannot be derived.
How I know that? By showing you that even if nobody noticing that you have no nose, somebody who gives thought to whether you have a nose or not, can avoid believing that you have a nose. For example, if he has some strange philosophical ideas.
Therefore, your sentence "It it completely irrelevant whether or not somebody who thinks that everything is an illusion thinks I've got a nose." is wrong also and this "therefore" from you I quoted in blue, is proven wrong.



Ok, I will concede that it's possible for certain people to believe that I don't have a nose, because they don't believe in anything.
But that has no impact on my argument, those people don't believe that I had a nose before Ishoser took it away either, so their believes are irrelevant when it comes to naming conventions, which is what my argument is based on.

If my nose is removed by Ishoser, I still have a nose, because what I would see in the mirror, what I could touch, what I could smell with, what other people would see, WOULD be called a nose.

As long as I have something on my face that me and other people using the English language correctly identify as a nose by the English definition, I have a nose.
It's a simple as that.

Unless there is a gapping hole in my face that I and others can detect, which would make the definition of Ishoser non-applicable, I have a nose.
Unless Ishoser took my nose away in such a way that I believe I no longer have a nose, I have a nose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

Ishoser := A being who cannot be detected by us, and who actually removed your nose, without anybody noticing, with the possible exception of the being itself.
And you said that you can conclude from this that you "absolutely irrevocably believe and think that you still have a nose".



Yes, we have that definition, and it's a definition modus tollens doesn't apply to.
You tried to make modus tollens fit this definition, but in order to do so, you left out part of the definition when you formulated it's supposed modus tollens equivalent.
Specifically, you left out without anybody noticing when you applied modus tollens to this definition.
If you want to use a logically rule to a statement, you need to translate the statement into a logical formula in its entirety.
You didn't do that, you left part out, therefore, modus tollens as you've laid it out doesn't apply to the pervious definition.

It only applies to this definition: If Ishoser does not exist, I have a nose. If Ishoser does exist, I don't have a nose.

That definition gives no indications whatsoever of me NOTICING my nose being there or being missing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

You are trying to prove that Ishoser does not exist.


I'm not trying to prove at all Ishoser does not exist. I've been telling you for several pages now that I have no indication whatsoever whether Ishoser exist or not, because the existence of my nose can be both an indication that he exists and that he does not exist.

I've been trying to explain... not prove... that I have no opinion on the existence of Ishoser, because I have no information about the existence of Ishoser.

I've told you I'm willing to take the position that Ishoser does not exist, for the purpose of the game, but that said position is not mine, and I'm only willing to adopt it to play out the continuation of the game.
Apparently you're rejecting my offer to do so, seeing that you didn't take me up on that offer and instead reverted back to a useless argument in semantics, so apparently you don't wish to continue the game.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 1:59:35 PM)

Ishtarr:

quote:

If my nose is removed by Ishoser, I still have a nose


Wrong, by the own definition of Ishoser.
If Ishoser does something, Ishoser exists.
If Ishoser exists, by the own definition of Ishoser, you have no nose. It was removed, by Ishoser.

Of course I can reformulate, Ishoser2, whose existence implies etc, etc... but if you decide to play with the words instead of playing the game, I really can't help you even more to win it. You will inevitably loose. Sorry for that.

So - you are rejecting the definition of Ishoser while you claim you accept it. You are contradicting what is implied in the definition, that you have no longer a nose, if Ishoser exists.

Apparently you abandon.



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 2:03:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Hello, Zonie63.

Please note that the only thing I actually did, was to define a potential being. The rest was pure logic.
Please note, in particular, that it was not necessary, for me, to say that Azonier exists.
Please note that "nose" is here only an arbitary sample, and nothing prevents me or you to define beings related to (almost?) any other thing you seem to percieve in the universe.

If you disagree with any of this, please say it instead of continuing. Thank you.


Then I may have to bow out at this point. I don't disagree that you were defining a potential being, but the starting question was "Do you have a nose?" So, in defining the potential being, the existence of my nose was also called into question.

My default choice would be to trust my physical senses of what I see around me, but if you were to ask me, I wouldn't be able to answer conclusively about whether or not we live inside a Matrix.

When the nature of existence itself is called into question, then my answer would most likely be "maybe," although in everyday life activities, I just assume that it's real and not focus on it too much.





SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 2:07:17 PM)

Hello, Zonie.

I am sorry but I do not understand which of the three statements you disagree with, or why.

Can you please tell me?

Thank you.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 2:32:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ishtarr:

quote:

If my nose is removed by Ishoser, I still have a nose


Wrong, by the own definition of Ishoser.
If Ishoser does something, Ishoser exists.
If Ishoser exists, by the own definition of Ishoser, you have no nose. It was removed, by Ishoser.



Euhm no.... by YOUR definition of Ishoser, if he exists, he removed my original nose without me noticing.
Your definition of Ishoser does not state at all that if Ishoser exists, I don't have "a" nose. It states that I don't have my original nose, because he removed that.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 2:34:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Ishtarr:
quote:

If my nose is removed by Ishoser, I still have a nose

Wrong, by the own definition of Ishoser.
If Ishoser does something, Ishoser exists.
If Ishoser exists, by the own definition of Ishoser, you have no nose. It was removed, by Ishoser.

Euhm no.... by YOUR definition of Ishoser, if he exists, he removed my original nose without me noticing.
Your definition of Ishoser does not state at all that if Ishoser exists, I don't have "a" nose. It states that I don't have my original nose, because he removed that.

Ditto.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 2:48:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Ishtarr:
quote:

If my nose is removed by Ishoser, I still have a nose

Wrong, by the own definition of Ishoser.
If Ishoser does something, Ishoser exists.
If Ishoser exists, by the own definition of Ishoser, you have no nose. It was removed, by Ishoser.

Euhm no.... by YOUR definition of Ishoser, if he exists, he removed my original nose without me noticing.
Your definition of Ishoser does not state at all that if Ishoser exists, I don't have "a" nose. It states that I don't have my original nose, because he removed that.

Ditto.



If you agree that your original definition doesn't state that Ishoser existence means that I don't have "a" nose, merely that I don't have my original nose, then what on Earth are you arguing about?



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 3:19:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Hello, Zonie.

I am sorry but I do not understand which of the three statements you disagree with, or why.

Can you please tell me?

Thank you.



When you said that the "only thing" you did was define a potential being, I would disagree that that was the only thing. The other thing that was done was call into question the existence of my nose.



GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 3:56:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
But, and here's the thing, that's exactly how people of "sound mind" understand the Golden Rule. They realize that it must be taken in the broad human context. You and your cranky professor read it concretistically, as if it was a program for a robot, and then get all sanctimonious about it because it would violate the First Law.



Actually I'm arguing that the issue is one of insight, in some cases like the humorous examples I used, you have a valid point that it might take an unsound mind not to have the insight necessary to act in a way that would be desirable to the rest of us. However, it's an argument that only refutes absurd examples and as such is an argument that misses my point.

A less humorous example would be the democracy which invades another country to depose a communist regime only to find that the population of said country is really pissed off about being given their freedom.




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 8:55:36 PM)

Isharr:
quote:

if you decide to play with the words instead of playing the game, I really can't help you even more to win it



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 8:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
When you said that the "only thing" you did was define a potential being, I would disagree that that was the only thing. The other thing that was done was call into question the existence of my nose.

But that is a logical consequence of defining the being, isn't it?

Therefore, as anybody (including you) can define a being about almost anything, whose logical consequence is that you cannot any longer say that that this anything exists, you must answer "maybe" to the existence of (almost) anything, or change your way of thinking.

Correct?



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/15/2011 9:14:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Isharr:
quote:

if you decide to play with the words instead of playing the game, I really can't help you even more to win it



When have I played with words?

I have played by the rules of the game and the definitions you provided.

You have admitted yourself that your definition of Ishoser does not state that his existence implies that I don't have a nose, just that I don't have my original nose.

I've been telling you for several posts now that I have no interest in a continued useless debate about semantics, and have offered several times to leave things be as they are and continue the game with a different stance.

Your behavior right now is just an indication that you don't care about learning (which you claimed to be the objective of the game) and only about demonstrating your own perceived superiority.
As soon as people don't answers with the answers you want them to give, you try to bully them into giving in by continuously stating that they are wrong, while providing no logical arguments whatsoever to back up your claims.

It's not my fault if you haven't defined the parameters of your own game in such a way that you will get the answers you want and can proceed on the path you had in mind.
If you're not getting the answers you want, you may want to reexamine the structure of the game, because apparently it's not as cleaver as you thought it to be, considering that you haven't had a single player thus far who has given you the answers you've insisted they must.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375