My Apple Challenge II

[pgp_protector]

True enough, so perhaps "barring any outside intervention" wasn't the best choice of phrase, since breathing is an autonomic act.

As pointed out, however, a plastic bag and some duct tape would negate that, although there would still be the possibility that AV does absorb oxygen through osmosis -- but only through his face. We'd get the same results if that was the case.

Hmmm -- how would we test that hypothesis?

Plastic seal / Tape over just the mouth / nose ?

 

[FishFace]

I know, AV, you want a straight answer to your so-oblique-you-can't-see-it question. So, I will provide you with a straight answer, taking it on faith (because I sure as heck don't have much evidence) that you will respond to the actual meat of the reply, since a straight answer to an oblique question serves nothing but the questioner's ego.

So, your question fits a broader class of questions, a fact which you have no doubt noticed, although failed to acknowledge, since we've all been asking you them:

Given some true proposition which any sensible epistemology will say is false, "how can you reject it without being wrong?"

The direct answer, as you are of course aware, is mere ego-fondling. Of course you can't reject the truth without being wrong. That's true by virtue of the terms used.
The point is that you can always make up some highly improbable, but possible proposition, give us a hypothetical situation in which you suppose it is true, and ask us what we'd do.

Point is, if there's no rational, reliable way to come to these conclusions, then it is simply irrational to do so. Our intuitions are the way they are for a good reason - because they work, generally speaking. So I make no apologies for admitting that, in your hypothetical situation, I would reject your hypothetically-true proposition.
I make no apologies because I need make none, and I need make none because we don't live in your hypothetical situation. The best conclusion you can make from a direct answer to your oblique question is "IF we lived in your hypothetical situation, we would be wrong." IF.

But the way you've set up the situation is such that we can never positively find that situation true through reliable, rational means. So no rational person would conclude that we actually are wrong.

Please AV, stop the bull. I sure hope you don't wonder why you get so many non-direct answers to these things - in case you do, it's because you ask an oblique question, which everybody knows you're just going to let lie, not make any discussion about, and then quote without reference to any of the actual worthwhile replies at some later date.
This, by the way, is annoying and disrespectful. You elicited this discussion by your choice of question and wording. You really should deal with it.

I hope you do.

 

[ReverendDG]

Actually, he would turn blue, pass out and then resume breathing again while unconscious. You cannot kill yourself by holding your breathe.

darn can we at least test this?
i say AV holds his breath till he passes out, it sounds like a win win for us all

 

[talkingmonkey]

If we stop reading and responding to AV's posts that he keeps pulling Ex Cūlus, perhaps he will go away.

He seems to be very similar to annoying advertising.

 

[VirOptimus]

What are you talking about? Science can't "prove" I breathe air.

Depends on your definition of proof I guess, but proving is actually a rather poor wording as that term can have different meanings. Science is more, well, understanding how the physical world operates may be a better way of putting it.

 

[Tomk80]

Depends on your definition of proof I guess, but proving is actually a rather poor wording as that term can have different meanings. Science is more, well, understanding how the physical world operates may be a better way of putting it.

Interesting trivia here. In dutch the word "proof" as it would be used in "mathematical proof" is the same as the word "evidence", although the context in both words is different. "Toon me het bewijs" could thus be translated to "show me the proof" if two mathematicians would be talking to each other, or translated to "show me the evidence" in a court case.

 

[Skavau]

If you mean your lengthy Post 93 --- no, I don't plan to address it.

I can't say I'm completely surprised. You obviously have little desire of even defending your arguably pointless challenge. You are anti-intellectualism defined.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't say I'm completely surprised. You obviously have little desire of even defending your arguably pointless challenge. You are anti-intellectualism defined.

If "defending my arguably pointless challenge" means I have to address Post 93, I'll gladly plead guilty as charged.

 

[Tomk80]

I can't say I'm completely surprised. You obviously have little desire of even defending your arguably pointless challenge. You are anti-intellectualism defined.

Arguably pointless? Pointless is an understatement for the uselessness of this thread and the arguments made in it by AV.

 

[Skavau]

If "defending my arguably pointless challenge" means I have to address Post 93, I'll gladly plead guilty as charged.

It means you have to address criticism. My post was a large criticism of your nonsensical challenge. You have failed to address it and other posts criticising your challenge?

Why do you not address these posts?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you guys done with this thread --- or not?

 

[Tomk80]

I'll just repeat myself in answer to that question.

Arguably pointless? Pointless is an understatement for the uselessness of this thread and the arguments made in it by AV.

 

[Split Rock]

/thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Given that no one responded for almost a year, I'd say that's a resounding "Yes".

/thread

 

[Athrond]

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

Well I could't "not be wrong" in that the apple suddenly wasn't created ex nihilo.

I would be right in not accepting it though - I would have no reason to, other than you saying it is so. And that is a bit too much to ask for such an extraordinary claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I could't "not be wrong" in that the apple suddenly wasn't created ex nihilo.

I would be right in not accepting it though - I would have no reason to, other than you saying it is so. And that is a bit too much to ask for such an extraordinary claim.

Let's simplify this --- the apple was created ex nihilo.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I present you an apple that according to me was created ex nihilo, but I'm lying. How do you refuse to accept that without being right?

 

[Athrond]

Interesting trivia here. In dutch the word "proof" as it would be used in "mathematical proof" is the same as the word "evidence", although the context in both words is different. "Toon me het bewijs" could thus be translated to "show me the proof" if two mathematicians would be talking to each other, or translated to "show me the evidence" in a court case.

Dutch is soo similar to "nordic" languages in many ways. Bevis = Bewijs.

 

[Athrond]

Let's simplify this --- the apple was created ex nihilo.

Yeah, thanks AV I noticed. But maybe I wasn't clear enugh in my reply:

You can't refuse to accept it without being wrong.

But at the same time I would be wrong if I accepted it - because it is such an extraordinary claim, and there is no evidence at all.* Do you agree?

When faced with such dilemma it is most practical to just live as if the apple is just your ordinary seed derived apple. The alternative is chaos i think.


There is a point to this challenge right? It's supposed to be analogue to creation" or something?



*and according to your first one, there can be none.