archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:
That's not true at all. Look at any of my threads - I always try to reason towards a profound conclusion. I don't reason from the conclusion.

I've looked, and all I see is you reasoning backwards. The fact that you put them in the opposite order when typing them in is not an indicator for the direction of your reasoning. Heck, even Anslem was careful to put them in the forward order when he was writing them down.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:
That's not true at all. Look at any of my threads - I always try to reason towards a profound conclusion. I don't reason from the conclusion.

I've looked, and all I see is you reasoning backwards. The fact that you put them in the opposite order when typing them in is not an indicator for the direction of your reasoning. Heck, even Anslem was careful to put them in the forward order when he was writing them down.

isn't it amazing that he believes this about his argument?

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:
That's not true at all. Look at any of my threads - I always try to reason towards a profound conclusion. I don't reason from the conclusion.

I've looked, and all I see is you reasoning backwards. The fact that you put them in the opposite order when typing them in is not an indicator for the direction of your reasoning. Heck, even Anslem was careful to put them in the forward order when he was writing them down.

isn't it amazing that he believes this about his argument?

The irony is that you always do start out with the assumptions associated with materialism, prior to building your models upon them.

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's of interest that idealists want materialists to limit their arguments and assumption to idealism.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's of interest that idealists want materialists to limit their arguments and assumption to idealism.

That's not true. Remember that my model made no assumptions about 'S', as did yours. My model was ontologically neutral. You should try that sometime.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's of interest that idealists want materialists to limit their arguments and assumption to idealism.

That's not true. Remember that my model made no assumptions about 'S', as did yours. My model was ontologically neutral. You should try that sometime.

First off, no model in that thread thus far is about proving materialism. I had one that was designed to show how idealism collapses to solipsism and another to show BIV issues around truth and extended cognition. BIV is so much like you and LI's belief that I was shocked.

What were my assumptions about s. That it was s? That it could observe salt? Note that these were models.

but how does that differ from your i-observe assumption?

jamest wrote:
What I meant was that I wasn't copying & pasting my stuff from the Vedas, or whatever. Anyway, I can legitimately say that my thoughts are my thoughts since there's no reference to my identity. My philosophy does not negate my existence.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's of interest that idealists want materialists to limit their arguments and assumption to idealism.

That's not true. Remember that my model made no assumptions about 'S', as did yours. My model was ontologically neutral. You should try that sometime.

First off, no model in that thread thus far is about proving materialism. I had one that was designed to show how idealism collapses to solipsism and another to show BIV issues around truth and extended cognition. BIV is so much like you and LI's belief that I was shocked.

What were my assumptions about s. That it was s? That it could observe salt? Note that these were models.

but how does that differ from your i-observe assumption?

We should really take this issue back to your thread. Anyway, your assumptions about S (Tom & Joe) were that they were O (material objects in themselves) as opposed to n1 (etc.) which were thoughts/experiences/etc..

That's not what you call an ontologically neutral model.

In my competing model, the ontology of S is initially unknown (which is precisely the case). Which is why my model is indicative of a more objective/neutral approach to the issue than your own.

jamest wrote:Okay Archibald. You're entitled to your opinion.

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:Okay Archibald. You're entitled to your opinion.

And so are you.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:Okay Archibald. You're entitled to your opinion.

And so are you.

I disagree.

Having an opinion carries with it a certain responsibility, a bar that must be reached. Jamest has not satisfied the requirement.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

jamest wrote:Okay Archibald. You're entitled to your opinion.

And so are you.

I disagree.

Having an opinion carries with it a certain responsibility, a bar that must be reached. Jamest has not satisfied the requirement.

...interesting opinion...

This drilling down to the heart of what's really (ultimately?) going on in these discussions is refreshing.

archibald wrote:

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

archibald wrote:

And so are you.

I disagree.

Having an opinion carries with it a certain responsibility, a bar that must be reached. Jamest has not satisfied the requirement.

...interesting opinion...

As is yours.




This drilling down to the heart of what's really (ultimately?) going on in these discussions is refreshing.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's of interest that idealists want materialists to limit their arguments and assumption to idealism.

That's not true. Remember that my model made no assumptions about 'S', as did yours. My model was ontologically neutral. You should try that sometime.