• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Re: Re: Over here!

Interesting Ian said:


Ah! So you don't agree with me after all. I thought it was strange! ;)
Click to expand...
Agree or not, I believe Stimpy can present his philosophy and logic better than you. Why? Because Stimpy, although a physicist, he is an excellent philosopher (possibly moreso than everyone's favorite deity, moi). When in the face of science, all that is illogical cowers in the corner with fear.
 
abiogenesis said:


Wouldn't the observance of empiricle evidence be logical?

I am increasingly of the opinion that I am no philosopher...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -
Click to expand...
"In philosophical language, the term empirical means simply what belongs to or is the product of experience or observation."
--Sir W. Hamilton.

Information that relies on observation isnt necessarily "logical deductive reasoning".

If it helps at all (which, based on my empirical knowledge, it most likely wont), I cant remember why empirical evidence and logical reasoning dont get along so well.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Stimpy continually claims that he is a materialist/physicalist, but that neither ontology or metaphysics play any role in his particular version of physicalism. There is a simple disproof of this. In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical. But supervenience itself is a metaphysical claim. :) Therefore to be a physicalist necessarily commits you to making at least one metaphysical claim :)
Click to expand...

I think I see a flaw in your proof:

"In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical."

I have to admit, even Philosopher Yahweh can become confused with all these philosophical expressions, but what exactly do you mean by this.

If you explain in laymens terms, what this means, I will either back up or retract my "I see a flaw in your proof" statement.

If I choose to back up my claim, that means I've found a logical contradiction. Remember, if Philosopher Yahweh finds an irrevocable logical contradiction in your proof, you proof is rendered useless.
 
By the way, who keeps 1-starring all your threads. I gave this thread 5 stars a few minutes ago because I honestly believe this thread is worth 5 stars.
 
Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Yahweh said:

Agree or not, I believe Stimpy can present his philosophy and logic better than you. Why? Because Stimpy, although a physicist, he is an excellent philosopher (possibly moreso than everyone's favorite deity, moi). When in the face of science, all that is illogical cowers in the corner with fear.
Click to expand...

If you think this, then this says very little for your philosophical ability. But this is more than evident from all you inane contributions I have seen so far.
 
Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Yahweh said:


I think I see a flaw in your proof:

"In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical."

I have to admit, even Philosopher Yahweh can become confused with all these philosophical expressions, but what exactly do you mean by this.
Click to expand...


It means what it says. There can be no difference in conscious states without a corresponding change in physical states. The physical logically necessitates the mental, although this is not known a priori.
 
Yahweh said:
By the way, who keeps 1-starring all your threads. I gave this thread 5 stars a few minutes ago because I honestly believe this thread is worth 5 stars.
Click to expand...

A good many people don't like me on here. It is no reflection on how interesting the thread is. They just give 1 star to any thread iniated by me as a matter of principle.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Interesting Ian said:


If you think this, then this says very little for your philosophical ability. But this is more than evident from all you inane contributions I have seen so far.
Click to expand...
Inane, probably. I often have great difficulty putting my thoughts into intelligible statements.

Edit to add:
Oh yeah, I'm also not very good at saying everything I need to say all at once.

Your use of the word "inane", what is the basis of that. Personally, I believe it is based on the "my beliefs are different from your beliefs" priniciple rather than what in philosophy we call "deductive reasoning" or "logic".

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didnt patronize my (or for the matter any other poster's) intelligence. I believe it tarnishes the quality of your character.
 
Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Interesting Ian said:


It means what it says. There can be no difference in conscious states without a corresponding change in physical states. The physical logically necessitates the mental, although this is not known a priori.
Click to expand...
Ok, then, I retract my statement. Only for 2 reasons:
1. I'm still cloudy on the meaning
2. Even if I fully understand it, I'm assuming it might be out of my league to defend.
 
Interesting Ian said:


There is no debate to be had. My statement is a knockout proof :)
Click to expand...
Show me where Ian made this argument that you are attacking. You appear to be stating a case for him. This is step one in building a strawman.
 
Re: Re: Over here!

Crossbow said:


Yahweh:

I am a bit confused oh 'one with no face'.

So are you accepting the bet or indicating something else?
Click to expand...
I would be accepting the bet. I bet my philosophical US$100 Stimpson J Cat will win this "debate".
 
Why isn't this a poll? I vote NO.

I remarked a few days ago at my surprise that Ian's head would fit inside his hat. Now I'm surprised that his head fits inside his hair.

~~ Paul
 
Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Yahweh said:

I would be accepting the bet. I bet my philosophical US$100 Stimpson J Cat will win this "debate".
Click to expand...

OK my man! Good call!

With your philosophical US$100 combined with my real US$100 we should be able to cover any of the bets that will be made by the vast, vast, vast numbers of Interesting Ian supporters.

So tell me, do the dancers at "select" clubs take philosophical dollars for lap dances?

:p
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Crossbow said:
So tell me, do the dancers at "select" clubs take philosophical dollars for lap dances?

:p
Click to expand...
Only at the philosophical dance bars...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Yahweh said:

Only at the philosophical dance bars...
Click to expand...

Bummer man!

I am afraid that I am partial to real lap dances as opposed to philosophical lap dances.
 
Master of his domain

Ian (Neo), master of ambiguity. What a hollow victory it must be, when no-one else can appreciate it. You may want to celebrate with a tender act of self-love. It would seem appropriate.
 
Ian,

Stimpy continually claims that he is a materialist/physicalist, but that neither ontology or metaphysics play any role in his particular version of physicalism. There is a simple disproof of this. In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical. But supervenience itself is a metaphysical claim. Therefore to be a physicalist necessarily commits you to making at least one metaphysical claim
Click to expand...

I am not a physicalist as you define the term. This is just yet another strawman argument.

So much for that. :rolleyes:

Physicalism holds that the physical logically necessitates consciousness.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this. I think that consciousness is a physical process in the brain. It is not logically necessitated by the physical. It is a subset of that which is physical. It is a physical process. This statement is no more metaphysical than the statement that computation is a physical process occurring in my computer's CPU.

But this is not an a priori necessity, but rather an a posteriori necessity. That is to say that although consciousness is necessitated, we cannot know it is necessitated without reference to the world. One needs to be acquainted with the world. Therefore consciousness is not a case of logical supervenience, but rather metaphysical supervenience.
Click to expand...

I cannot make any sense of this.

There is no debate to be had. My statement is a knockout proof :)
Click to expand...

How could there be a debate? All you have done is misrepresent my position, and attack it. I'll give you this, you chew through strawmen like a weed-wacker through dandelions.


Dr. Stupid

PS. Like my new sig? :p
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
PS. Like my new sig? :p [/B]
Click to expand...

I loved it when I saw it from Yahweh! Nice one Yahweh!

How do you like mine :D
I don't care who you would have said that one to, it's hilarious :D

Adam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom