The idiot's argument

The idiot's argument
angslan
Malevolent AI
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 31, 2011

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 4998
#581 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 6, 2013 - 7:12 PM:

Blaise St Mary wrote:
You're asking me to present an argument supporting the reasonableness of the Idiot's thought process. I've done all I can here. If you're not convinced you're not convinced. Have you ever agreed to disagree?


You've laid out one thought pattern, and you've laid out another, and both are invalid arguments, and yet you are stating that one is more reasonable than the other. Without an explanation as to why (unless, of course, you were serious when you said that some people considered the conclusion of the idealist argument to be true and that was reasonable thinking), then there's nothing to convince me yet that one is more reasonable than the other. You must have a reason why you believe that one is more reasonable than the other, or when you suggest it is such you are just saying empty words. So what's the reason? Is it more intuitively appealing to you? Is the logic, in some manner, more rigorous? What, for example, would counter the claim that they are equally unreasonable, or that the realist argument is more reasonable?
On Mar 6, 2013 - 7:28 PM, Blaise St Mary responded: "Invalid" again? Is every argument deductive to you?

angslan
Malevolent AI
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 31, 2011

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 4998
#582 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 6, 2013 - 7:38 PM:

Blaise St Mary wrote:
"Invalid" again? Is every argument deductive to you?


I have asked you for your reason. If you think that there is something else, then point it out. Say what it is. Say, "Instead of the validity, in this case you should be looking at x." - whatever x is. But so far you've not answered the question. I'm not sure why. Last time I asked you said empathy (my empathy for the arguer doesn't make me think she is more reasonable than the realist in error). Now you say it is not validity. But somehow, in all this text that you manage to get out, you haven't written what the reason actually is. Normally this indicates one specific thing only.
On Mar 6, 2013 - 7:48 PM, Blaise St Mary responded: I've pleaded my case. The jury says guilty. See you up the river.
On Mar 6, 2013 - 8:12 PM, angslan responded: No you haven't. You've said what the idiot is thinking, but not why it is more reasonable. Does this question not have an answer?
On Mar 6, 2013 - 8:43 PM, Blaise St Mary responded: Your gavel came down long ago. It's all over but the silence now.
angslan
Malevolent AI
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 31, 2011

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 4998
#583 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 6, 2013 - 9:04 PM:

I suppose what gives me the shits is that you are fully capable of answering this question, that I am asking, and that your decision not to answer on based upon some character-assertion you have that I've already decided against your answer. I'm not even sure what your answer is, because at different times it has appeared to be "the conclusion is often taken to be true" and "empathy". So why not just answer the question? At worst, if I disagree with it, you will be no more put out that you have been previously, and it looks like you're intent upon replying anyway to say such pithy statements about my gavel - why not just provide the answer? Earlier you were accusing me of being "obstructionist", but I can hardly see how it is that you do not level the same criticism at yourself if, when asked a question, you simply decide not to answer the question but to write things anyway.

So, why do you think that the idealist version is more reasonable? It's a direct question, and one you've indicated you have an answer to. Let's have it.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 469
Total Posts: 10069
#584 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 8, 2013 - 5:04 PM:

Consider: Beauty does not exist
atticusII
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2011

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 755
#585 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 11, 2013 - 10:41 AM:

Therefore, the target does not exist

What's the problem the statement is correct, in context of the prior statement. The target doesn't exist but we know something is out there. Your target and my target are temporal images of it and we will likely change our view of things in the future. Like usual Banno, this logic you like to follow leads nowhere.

Edited by atticusII on Mar 11, 2013 - 10:58 AM. Reason: sp.
On Mar 11, 2013 - 10:50 AM, unenlightened responded: I disagree - therefore you do not exist.
On Mar 11, 2013 - 11:00 AM, atticusII responded: So you argue with yourself over what's out there, great!
locked
Download thread as
  • 62.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Mar 11, 2013 - 11:00 AM, atticusII replied internally to atticusII's What's the pro....
On Mar 11, 2013 - 10:50 AM, unenlightened replied internally to atticusII's What's the pro....
On Mar 11, 2013 - 10:15 AM, brain in a vat replied internally to Banno's Consider: Beauty doe....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 4:44 PM, Blaise St Mary replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 3:32 PM, jedaisoul replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 3:19 PM, jedaisoul replied internally to jedaisoul's @BSM Are you seri....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 2:45 PM, Blaise St Mary replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 8:09 AM, jedaisoul replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 6:41 AM, Blaise St Mary replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....
On Mar 7, 2013 - 6:22 AM, jedaisoul replied internally to Blaise St Mary's I don't se....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.