Relativity

[Resha Caner]

Is the condescending tone absolutely necessary?

That is why I asked you at the onset for an example of what you were claiming. Something demonstrable.

I put the whole thing out there as succinctly as I could. You demonstrated that you heard me. You don't see a problem, but I don't know what you disagree with, so we're walking through this step by step. When we get to the part you disagree with, we'll have something to talk about.

If the cost of continuing is more than what you think you'll get out of this, we can stop anytime.

F. A and B, therefore the truth value of X is unknown.

I was looking for a comment on F., specifically that it is unknown. Do you accept that?

 

[Davian]

I put the whole thing out there as succinctly as I could. You demonstrated that you heard me. You don't see a problem, but I don't know what you disagree with, so we're walking through this step by step. When we get to the part you disagree with, we'll have something to talk about.

If the cost of continuing is more than what you think you'll get out of this, we can stop anytime.

Sure thing.

I was looking for a comment on F., specifically that it is unknown. Do you accept that?

No, as A and B are faulty; A does not seem right, as you must have a bit of evidence - something that initiated the claim. B is redundant, as a scientific theory incorporates evidence/observations.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, as A and B are faulty; A does not seem right, as you must have a bit of evidence - something that initiated the claim. B is redundant, as a scientific theory incorporates evidence/observations.

I'm happy to let you amend, but since you didn't I'll push back.

With respect to A, the thing that initates a claim need not be evidence. It could be (amongst various scenarios) an intent to deceive: I have the snake oil that will cure the common cold!

With respect to B, I never said the theory was scientific. But, even if it were redundant, that wouldn't explain rejecting F. It only means you think you can say it more concisely.

 

[Davian]

I'm happy to let you amend, but since you didn't I'll push back.

With respect to A, the thing that initates a claim need not be evidence. It could be (amongst various scenarios) an intent to deceive: I have the snake oil that will cure the common cold!

With respect to B, I never said the theory was scientific. But, even if it were redundant, that wouldn't explain rejecting F. It only means you think you can say it more concisely.

Conciseness is what it is all about.

I considered amending, but I think your approach is faulty. Without asking leading questions, I cannot fathom where you are going with this.

 

[Resha Caner]

Conciseness is what it is all about.

I considered amending, but I think your approach is faulty. Without asking leading questions, I cannot fathom where you are going with this.

Then ask leading questions.

You dismissed one of my earlier comments as irrelevant, but it had a very definite purpose, which is this: I'm not invested in this issue. I don't really care what the outcome is. I'm hoping to learn something, and whether this convinces me there is no mind-body problem or not I'm ready to go wherever this leads. So, I don't see this as a debate but as a discussion.

With that said, you seem very firmly rooted in the position that there is no mind-body problem ... maybe even dogmatic. Fine. Then I'll take the other side. As I admit, my sympathies lie that way, so I think I can hold the other side with enthusiasm. I won't learn anything if I just nod politely and agree with you.

I know you think I'm trying to lead you into a trap, but I'm not.

So what is the purpose of this? Well, you already know the question in front of us. So, honestly, if you weren't trying to smell out my trap and make sure you can hold your ground, it wouldn't matter.

I'm being forthright about why I'm doing this. The first round ended with "huh?" and a string of ad hominem comments, so we need to go deeper. So that's what we're doing. I'm trying to determine just how much detail you're going to expect as we move from beginning to end. So far we haven't reached the bottom of that pit. This is going to be a long, tough slog.

More specifically, what is the purpose of making the statements that I have? To establish what you will accept as a method and what you won't accept. Saying you want the "scientific method" isn't good enough. I can point you to thousands of pages of debate on method in the professional literature that spans more than a century ... and the people participating in that debate never reached an end. They just got old and died. If you check what the standards organizations say about method, they don't define a specific method (with the exception of defining certification and regulatory tests). They basically say, "Document whatever method you choose to use."

So, we're establishing our method.

Step 1: I made a claim.

What came next?

You said there was a logical fallacy in my summary - that simply because we don't know everything about the brain does not mean there is a problem. I agree, but you don't seem to get that. You seem to want to extend that to mean there is no problem - issue over. That, I disagree with. I'm trying to clarify that all it means is that, at this point, based on what has been presented, we don't know if there is a problem.

At this point, the truth value of the claim is not true or false. It is unknown.

I guess if you're willing to concede that, we can move on. If not, we need to go back to working through the logical statements that will bring us to agreement on that position.

 

[Davian]

Then ask leading questions.

You dismissed one of my earlier comments as irrelevant, but it had a very definite purpose, which is this: I'm not invested in this issue. I don't really care what the outcome is. I'm hoping to learn something, and whether this convinces me there is no mind-body problem or not I'm ready to go wherever this leads. So, I don't see this as a debate but as a discussion.

With that said, you seem very firmly rooted in the position that there is no mind-body problem ... maybe even dogmatic. Fine. Then I'll take the other side. As I admit, my sympathies lie that way, so I think I can hold the other side with enthusiasm. I won't learn anything if I just nod politely and agree with you.

I know you think I'm trying to lead you into a trap, but I'm not.

So what is the purpose of this? Well, you already know the question in front of us. So, honestly, if you weren't trying to smell out my trap and make sure you can hold your ground, it wouldn't matter.

I'm being forthright about why I'm doing this. The first round ended with "huh?" and a string of ad hominem comments, so we need to go deeper. So that's what we're doing. I'm trying to determine just how much detail you're going to expect as we move from beginning to end. So far we haven't reached the bottom of that pit. This is going to be a long, tough slog.

More specifically, what is the purpose of making the statements that I have? To establish what you will accept as a method and what you won't accept. Saying you want the "scientific method" isn't good enough. I can point you to thousands of pages of debate on method in the professional literature that spans more than a century ... and the people participating in that debate never reached an end. They just got old and died. If you check what the standards organizations say about method, they don't define a specific method (with the exception of defining certification and regulatory tests). They basically say, "Document whatever method you choose to use."

So, we're establishing our method.

Step 1: I made a claim.

What came next?

You said there was a logical fallacy in my summary - that simply because we don't know everything about the brain does not mean there is a problem. I agree, but you don't seem to get that. You seem to want to extend that to mean there is no problem - issue over. That, I disagree with. I'm trying to clarify that all it means is that, at this point, based on what has been presented, we don't know if there is a problem.

At this point, the truth value of the claim is not true or false. It is unknown.

I guess if you're willing to concede that, we can move on. If not, we need to go back to working through the logical statements that will bring us to agreement on that position.

I've got it now. You want to begin a discussion/debate on the merits of this 'mind-body' problem that you have a hunch about, and you are trying to do it through truth claims.

Do I appear dogmatic? Only in that I have confidence in the philosophers and what they have learned using neuroscience, and I have found that what they say is demonstrably true. I do not claim to be a philosopher, or a neuroscientist, so, rather than reinventing this philosophical wheel, I would ask that you go through those relatively short links. If you then want to make your claim, we can use their terminology and concepts to frame your idea.