So, you asked me how one can have a faculty without having any awareness, yes? — Bartricks

No. Awareness can refer to either a state or an ability; and what I'm asking is specifically about introspection (not generally about faculties). The question is how one can have a faculty of introspection without the capacity of awareness. You've mutated that into how one can have a faculty without a state of awareness, but that was not the question.

So one can have a faculty without having any of the awareness the faculty is in principle capable of giving you. — Bartricks

But not without a capacity. Incidentally your objection doesn't even make sense; are you honestly going with bot built facilities having their introspective eyes shut?

Not really following things are you? — Bartricks

Nice try, but it is never my fault when you fail to make an argument. It's not on me to guess what you mean; it's on you to say what you mean.

It doesn't have a faculty of introspection. It has a 'faculty of introspection' - that is, a faculty that will generate in its possessor states that are introspectively indiscernible from states giving introspective awareness. — Bartricks

Nope... doesn't work. There seems to be some attempt to use quotes here analogous to the p- usage in a Chalmersian analysis, but it collapses in on itself. We have no faculty of introspection, and yet, we have a faculty and we have things being introspectively indiscernible, by means of some 'faculty of introspection'. What?

Again, it's not on me to guess what you mean. If your single-quoting is meant to make some sort of Chalmersian distinction, you need to be consistent so that it's clear. If you're referring to some weird Bartricksian 'faculty' thing you invented and never explained, your argument has yet to be made.

whether two states are introspectively indiscernible or not does not depend upon anyone failing introspectively to discern them. — Bartricks

There's that phrase "failing introspectively to discern them" again. What does that mean? Try working this out by responding to the swatch example.

your belief, though true, does not constitute knowledge. — Bartricks

Very questionable. What is your definition of knowledge ?

What's questionable? Do you think he does know the pie is in the oven?

this is a Gettier case, look it up.
But I'm not gonna argue about that, this is not the subject of the thread.

I quoted you contradicting yourself at your request, so that would be the

Point? Do you have one? — Bartricks

The over arching point is probably that your conclusion could be right in theory, but this argument doesn't prove it. It seems like you may be arguing more for sport than to actually fix it, so really nothing more to say about it that hasn't been repeated 3 or 4 times by myself and others. Feel free to pretend you don't understand. Cheers.

Where do I contradict myself? I am not doing your working out for you - identify the contradiction.

So you agree that he doesn't know there is a pie in the oven (for in a Gettier case the agent doesn't know a true proposition despite the belief in its truth being justified).
So what's questionable then?

Where did I argue that you can't discern them?
— Bartricks
This statement implies you can discern the difference between the products of unguided VERSUS guided evolution.
---If this isn't crystal clear then just stop. We are wasting electricity.


It supposes you would know the difference between the two.
— Cheshire
Here I am confirming your implication in the first sentence. Which is just the first bit over again. So not complicated. And your response to your own implications are the negation denoted by the word No.


↪Cheshire No it doesn't.
— Bartricks — Cheshire

The above represents the requested contradiction. Feel free to make philosophical noises at it.

Where's the contradiction? It's just waffle. Identify two statements by me that contradict each other.

Presumably you think you've already done that. You haven't. If you say "X presupposes Y" and I say "No it doesn't" that doesn't mean I am saying Y is not the case.

Me: I have a cake and a coffee.

YOu: If you have a coffee, that presuppose you have a cake.

Me: No it doesn't.

You: So you don't have a cake. That contradicts your earlier statement.

Me: No it doesn't. I do have a cake. But having a coffee does not presuppose possession of a cake.

You: you contradicted yourself.

Me: No I didn't.

You. You did.

Repeat a 1000 times

Presumably you think you've already done that. You haven't. If you say "X presupposes Y" and I say "No it doesn't" that doesn't mean I am saying Y is not the case. — Bartricks

If X, then Y
If X, Not Y, Then Y

You: I know the outcome of guided evolution is X
You: So, the outcome of unguided evolution is Y
Me: So you know the outcome of two types of evolution
You: Yes, No, Maybe, Cake
No one: Compelling.

What the blue blazes are you on about? If you say X 'presupposes' Y and I say it doesn't, that doesn't mean I am saying Y is not the case, does it?

I don't speak in double negatives.

And you don't think clearly either.
"X presupposes Y" is false. X and Y may be the case. But X does not presuppose Y.

Look, you don't even know how to address my argument, do you?

↪Cheshire And you don't think clearly either. — Bartricks

If X, then Y
If X , then (empty set), then Y

Not better.

What the hell are you on about?

If X then Y. That's called a conditional. It doesn't assert X or Y. It just says 'if' X, then Y.

So, if I deny "If X then Y" I am not thereby denying either X or Y.

Christ.

Now, I haven't contradicted myself at any point.

Address my argument. Read the OP. And address the argument.

No it isn't. That's the point. See the OP for details.

I believe you! :hearts:

Thanks for disproving science...

I haven't disproved science. What are you on about? You've just plonked an arbitrary video about evolution addressing a straw man argument that I haven't made and blown some kisses at me and then sneered.

Read the OP. Marvel at its brilliance. Address the argument.

Marvel at its brilliance. — Bartricks

:starstruck:

So, if I deny "If X then Y" I am not thereby denying either X or Y. — Bartricks

Right, but no one accused you of that; your first premise which is...1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything.

It looks like an if...then statement. But, you can't defend it because you have ZERO reason to suppose you know the outcome of 1 type of evolution(unguided) versus another type of evolution(guided implied).

If you fail to acknowledge this for the pathologically umpteenth time I will send an invoice.

I defended premise 1. In the OP.

Premise 1 doesn't 'look like' an 'if...then' statement. It is one. Not looks like. Is.

The 'conclusion' of the syllogism is that our faculties are the real deal, do create states of awareness, and are not the product of unguided evolution.

The conclusion doesn't follow from 1 alone. It follows from 1 and 2.

So, if you have a problem with premise 1, address the argument I gave in support of it. You haven't.

If you have no problem with premise 1, but have a problem with the conclusion, then you need to address premise 2 and what I said in defence of it.

Do one or other of those things.

Premise 1 doesn't 'look like' an 'if...then' statement. It is one. Not looks like. Is. — Bartricks

Right, and if..then statements requires a connection between two things that are not satisfied by an 'or'.

The conclusion doesn't follow from 1 alone. It follows from 1 and 2. — Bartricks

One has to be true and it isn't. I can't make it true and I won't pretend it is; because I think that's a disservice.

So, if you have a problem with premise 1, address the argument I gave in support of it. You haven't. — Bartricks

It's unintelligible, probably means something to you but otherwise requires a cipher. And it's unnecessary because people can't "know" the outcomes of hypothetical evolutionary system alterations.

If you have no problem with premise 1, but have a problem with the conclusion, then you need to address premise 2 and what I said in defence of it. — Bartricks

I obviously have a problem with premise 1, why would you think otherwise?

I obviously have a problem with premise 1, why would you think otherwise? — Cheshire

Because you haven't said anything to address the argument I gave in support of it.

I mean, what do you think my argument is?

I mean, what do you think my argument is? — Bartricks

Evolution was guided because I have an X type of awareness instead of a Y type of awareness. In the structure of a filibuster in the key of E.

Like I say, you don't know what my argument is. Read the op and try and understand what my argument for premise 1 is. Then address it.

if our faculties of awareness - or rather, 'faculties of awareness' - are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then none of us are 'perceiving' reality at all. — Bartricks

Evolution was guided because I have an X type of awareness instead of a Y type of awareness. — Cheshire

Y type of awareness = "none of us are 'perceiving' reality at all."

You describe the counter to JTB and then toss in the qualifier "guided/unguided" and apply it to evolution. It's like a diversion and then quick sell. If it's causing distress I can pretend to believe you. At this point, I don't mind. You are right in the sense, JTB is inaccurate. It's more of an academic tool than a real world description; like comparative advantage in economics.

What was my argument in support of premise 1?

Claiming unawareness is nonsensical because it entails awareness. If awareness is the only possible state of affairs one may claim then evolution has occurred in a guided form; by simply the deduction that it can not be otherwise. Due to the nature of all beliefs.

That's premise two (and it is not that awareness is the only possible state of affairs; it's that we are never justified in believing we are wholesale unaware. For an analogy - it is possible for me not to exist, but I am never going to be justified in believing such a state of affair obtains).

But anyway, that's my defence of premise 2, not 1. Premise 1 turns on what it takes for a mental state to have representative contents. And what I argue is that for a mental state to have representative contents, it has to be being used by an agent for the purpose of representing what it is representing.