• 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

Interesting Ian said:
In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical
Click to expand...
Physicalists hold that all that exists is physical. Therefore the statement "Consciousness supervenes on the physical" is semantically equivalent to "a physical thing is dependent on the set of all physical things in such a way that change in that physical thing can occur only after change has occurred in the set of all physical things". Still sound like a metaphysical claim?
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot make any sense of this.
Click to expand...
I had similar difficulties. Although I usually dont trust my own judgement, I am completely confident in my ability as a philospher.

Ian, I'd just like to point out, good debate doesnt require that you craft you arguement with "intelligent sounding" words, its more important to have an intelligent arguement. You want to thwart the competition, its not good strategy (or fair) to do so by working cryptic Navaho code mojo. So again, would you mind explaining in laymens terms (I cant stress that enough) whatever you mean by the above quote.
 
Ian succeeds (if you can call it that) only when he can keep complexity up to an unmanageable level. Ask him to state a claim simply, and he won't do it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Crossbow said:


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.
Click to expand...
I will bet on Interesting Ian, with one caveat. You have to get Ian to admit he has lost. Takers?
 
treborf said:
Ian succeeds (if you can call it that) only when he can keep complexity up to an unmanageable level. Ask him to state a claim simply, and he won't do it.
Click to expand...
I've always try to humor people in my own way like that. I've had personal experience where I've talked to people that turn every simple situation into a needlessly complex essay. At work, in the library is my favorite book. I like to bring it into my class. The book is about 75 pages long, it is a very long book that uses abstract mathematical principles to prove 1 + 1 = 2. I can do that in about 2 sentences and 15 seconds. I take one apple I have one apple, I put another apple next to it I have two apples. Theres your proof. Occams Razor, I took out all that nasty "mathematical" mumbo jumbo.
 
Yahweh said:
I take one apple I have one apple, I put another apple next to it I have two apples. Theres your proof
Click to expand...
That doesn't prove 1 + 1 = 2, it assumes it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

Tricky said:

I will bet on Interesting Ian, with one caveat. You have to get Ian to admit he has lost. Takers?
Click to expand...
I'd like to bet against it. Instead, I bet one of 2 other situations play out:
1. If Ian realizes he's lost, he'll just stop responding thereby creating the illusion that he hasnt acknowledged any new posts.
2. If Ian realizes he's lost, he will refuse to swallow his pride and never admit, thereby creating the illusion of a stalemate.
 
Martinm said:
That doesn't prove 1 + 1 = 2, it assumes it.
Click to expand...
Well then, its not really a mathematical law, more of a theorem. Until we can demonstrate in a situation where one apple next to one other apple isnt 2 apples, the proof is based on explicit assumptions.
 
Yahweh said:
Well then, its not really a mathematical law, more of a theorem. Until we can demonstrate in a situation where one apple next to one other apple isnt 2 apples, the proof is based on explicit assumptions
Click to expand...
Correct. 1 + 1 = 2 follows directly from Peano's axioms.
 
Yahweh said:

At work, in the library is my favorite book. I like to bring it into my class. The book is about 75 pages long, it is a very long book that uses abstract mathematical principles to prove 1 + 1 = 2. I can do that in about 2 sentences and 15 seconds. I take one apple I have one apple, I put another apple next to it I have two apples. Theres your proof. Occams Razor, I took out all that nasty "mathematical" mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...
I love it. In writing, succinctness = impact.
 
treborf said:

I love it. In writing, succinctness = impact.
Click to expand...
I've been working on becoming one of the most quotable members on these boards... so many of the things I say are just signatures waiting to happen...
 
Thank Ed this is the final proof. I'm not sure I could wade through another thread like this one.

NA
 
If any debater calls their opponent a c*nt, f*ckwit, concrete block. etc., has (s)he lost the debate?

[edited for grammar]
 
Martinm said:
Physicalists hold that all that exists is physical. Therefore the statement "Consciousness supervenes on the physical" is semantically equivalent to "a physical thing is dependent on the set of all physical things in such a way that change in that physical thing can occur only after change has occurred in the set of all physical things". Still sound like a metaphysical claim?
Click to expand...
Depends.

Would you prefer "Life supervenes on non-life"?

Or wouldn't that be a correct statement for a physicalist/naturalist?
 
Treborf said:
Ian succeeds (if you can call it that) only when he can keep complexity up to an unmanageable level.
Click to expand...
Ooh, more sig material!

Ceptimus said:
If any debater calls their opponent a c*nt, f*ckwit, concrete block. etc., have they lose the debate?
Click to expand...
No, unfortunately. We have to get him to call us Nazis.

Now, concerning supervene. I cannot get my mind around this word. Here is the definition:

"to follow or result as an additional, adventitious, or unlooked-for development"

So shouldn't the statement be "consciousness supervenes from the physical"?

~~ Paul
 
Neat, Ian, you ran and hid in this thread.

You're still trying to enforce your definitions on everyone else, I see.

Where do you get the authority to proceed ex-Cathedra? Please do tell us all.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Ian,

I cannot make any sense of this.

It's not you, Stimpy.


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
Click to expand...

I think if we keep this up the world will have a straw-man shortage, Ian will have used them all up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom