Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Observe: Law of non-contradition... please.If you really mean unobservable, I'd say yes. And no.
It may make no practical difference, but there is an ontological difference.It really makes no difference, either answer gives the exact same results.
A what?If they're unobservable in any conceivable way, them existing or not is a semantic quibble.
Go study ontology and get back to me.There's literally no difference between them existing or not, by definition.
Where, please evidence for this comment! But I guess you will brush over than one as you would not like to admit you are wrong.So says the guy who's trying to discredit naturalism
Chocolate comes from a fairly well definmed set of chemical compounds containing cacao etc. Without them the term "chocolate" becomes inappropriate.
Chocolate has a chemical definition in ordinary language, like I said:
Fermented, roasted, shelled, and ground cacao seeds, often combined with a sweetener or flavoring agent.
Observe: Law of non-contradition... please.
A difference without a distinction, a series of meaningless word games, as I said a few posts ago.It may make no practical difference, but there is an ontological difference.
A what?
Wrong about what? Do you feel that your comments about possibly unobseravbly conscious office furniture have nothing to do with the problems naturalism has in describing brain functions? You've spent an awful lot of time on it for something which you're now implying is totally irrelevant to the discussion.Where, please evidence for this comment! But I guess you will brush over than one as you would not like to admit you are wrong.
Please provide proof that an inherently unobservable property must follow the law of non-contradiction, and the observations you used to prove this.
Why not, when chocolate has a well accepted chemical definition? On the other hand consciousness (or "counscious" if you like, pending further enquiry) does not have such a chemical definition. So you are simply repeating the same failed analogy. I think that what started off as a misconception of my position has turned into a warrior like straw man you simply feel unable to give up. YOu think that the definition of chocolate might stray from the present one, IF the definition of consciousness might stray from the present ("brain") one. But I repeat that that is not the present definition of conscious or consciousness.As I said I don't think (if a quark were chocolate) we would actually expect it to pass a chemical examination. Just because all the chocolate we've seen so far is correlated with certain chemical compounds is no reason to assume that it must be universally true.
I am not sure of that one. I would have thought that being conscious was an acticvity of consciousness, just like being chocaletey is a property of chocolate. BTW whats the point you want to make, akhi?That's defining chocolate, not chocolateness. The correct comparison then is conscious :
And? Obviously to you you are making a point, but yuou'll need to fill me in on the important details. You have selected one definition dealing with human minds where we could make a connection to brains, and you want to generalize from there, right?conscious - definition of conscious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., the first scientific definition - 4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action
How would I provide observations proving something unobservable? I don't think my mental contents are that mixed up. Do you?Please provide proof that an inherently unobservable property must follow the law of non-contradiction, and the observations you used to prove this.
Could you put that in logical form please.A difference without a distinction, a series of meaningless word games, as I said a few posts ago.
I am asking: where was I arguing against naturalism. Please state the case clearly.Wrong about what? Do you feel that your comments about possibly unobseravbly conscious office furniture have nothing to do with the problems naturalism has in describing brain functions?
See the previous comment.You've spent an awful lot of time on it for something which you're now implying is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
What?? Like moving is an activity of movement?I am not sure of that one. I would have theought that being conscious was an acticvity of consciousness,
What is the point of all this grammatical insight please?What?? Like moving is an activity of movement?
That´s the problem with your nominalizations. You end up believing nominalized verbs and adjectives signify objects.
Chocolate has a chemical definition such that veering too far does not make something "chocolate" anymore. Consciousness on the other hand has an observed correlation to certain chemical states, but is not necessarily defined by them. See the dictionary for details.
Maybe. But there is no way to use unobservable properties to differentiate on thing from another.So there are no such things as unobservable properties?
Please provide any reason whatsoever to think that the law of non-contradiction can ever be broken.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I know that, but to conclude "therefore, because we don't know that they are, they are not" is an argument from ignorance.Sorry but the ONLY consciousness we are aware of occurs in brains and in living organisms. Rocks, quarks, and chairs have neither brains nor life.
I acept that but afaict it does not affect my argument.Maybe. But there is no way to use unobservable properties to differentiate on thing from another.
The principle of non-contradiction can IIRC be abandoned in non-classical "paraconsistent logic". No time to searchfor references at present.To use GrowingSmaller's tactic: Just because we don't know nor can't conceive of any case where it might be broken, doesn't mean it couldn't ever. I'm agnostic on that subject.
The principle of non-contradiction can IIRC be abandoned in non-classical "paraconsistent logic".
That nominalized descriptions of processes and attributes don´t create objects. They are merely useful grammatical products.What is the point of all this grammatical insight please?
Sorry that goes over my head. Does that mean I have to quit now, and grammar proves that quarks cannot be conscious?That nominalized descriptions of processes and attributes don´t create objects. They are merely useful grammatical products.
I dont know have not studied it formally, just know if it's existence.But can it be abandoned and not abandoned in non-classical paraconsistent logic at the same time and in the same respect?
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ok.Sorry that goes over my head.
No, it means neither.Does that mean I have to quit now, and grammar proves that quarks cannot be conscious?
I am not sure what the analogy you are trying to draw is sorry so I wont go on.Ok.
No, it means neither.
As far as I am concerned you are free to write whatever you want, and grammar proves nothing (the latter almost being my very point).
Please answer this question to yourself: Is moving an action of a movement?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?