Are you saying that your gluons can think better than mine?

This debate seems to have the same issue that the previous one had, and reaffirms my belief that the general format of these debates should be that each poster has a preprepared opening statement to state and defend their position. Only after these two initial posts should they then respond to one another.

I agree with this. I don't think quoting should be allowed in these debates. It should flow as an offline debate would. Also standard grammar and punctuation.

And yall blamed 3017 when it was obvious he is a very good debater,he just had a terribly uncharitable and poor debater who upended the debate. — Protagoras

Yep. It was disappointing to say the least. I asked 180 for a rematch...we'll see. Though I'm not sure there is much bite to his bark :razz:

Anyway, I'll have to get into this new one w/Hanover...seems intriguing... .

180 crashed another debate into the ground.

@3017amen
Hanover has spiced it up now with his last post.

But i don't have much faith in 180. The man cannot debate without being overemotional and barks like an
excited poodle.

My question is why don't posters and the mod address that 180 collapses the debate?
Surely the rules of the debate have a spirit of decency and commonsense?

I see @bert1 knows what's going on! :up:

My two pennies:

After reading 180's lack of responses, I must say, Golly Geee:



180 tends to use political statements instead of philosophical arguments (I know we all have to be careful there, but c'mon man!). Here you go again 180, projecting your own lack of understanding onto other's. I think most have figured him out, including Hanover. For instance, when he has nothing, he projects in this case, his own straw man and non sequitur fallacies to make himself look like he knows something. When Hanover points it out, 180 then pivots to attacking the 'process' and not the substance. Very 101. It's just a smoke screen and an illusionary budding intellect... .

Oh well, nothing new under the sun there. Another disappointment. Hanover did his homework, where 180 so far did not. (Actually, not sure why 180 even agreed to the debate... .) Hanover also calls him out and corrects his misuse of ad hom's. Sorry for the tough love 180, really, you gotta give us something man; not just the usual smoke and mirrors. :razz:

Anyway, be that as it may, Hanover has been more than gracious, and has offered some other interesting arguments that have real import.

1. I liked the notion of Subjective truth. NICE.
2. SD: " It admits to the obvious metaphysical difference between hats and perceptions of hats, and that the latter cannot be experienced except by the subject." YEP.
3 "we each walk around daily with the freedom to choose, something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in a physically limited universe.That is to say, SD gives a path for a meaningful free will, entirely lacking in a purely physical world." I loved the notion and/or suggestion of Metaphysical Will ala Schop and others! Or how about this, someone explain the Will period, without positing some dualist metaphysical concept.

Also, this is an interesting supposition below. I would like to see both 180 and Hanover exploring this one a bit (180 hasn't touched it yet). This could prove interesting. In the meantime, someone here provide some insight to its implications:

"And there is a critical distinction between not detected and not detectable, with the latter suggesting that no amount of technology can locate its existence. I get that I can't hear extremely high frequencies, but they are detectable, not just not detected. On the other hand, you will never experience my experience. Ever. That is what makes mental states different from physical states."

How does this relate to independent existence?

For example, 180 supposedly said through Hanover's interpretation of same that: "is that I [Hanover]deny specifically that there are physical properties that are completely incapable of being sensed in some capacity and so measured, including dark matter."

Is 180 suggesting there is independent existence?

180 crashed another debate into the ground.

Gosh, it definitely seems so...let's hope for the best, plan for the worst :razz:

:up:

Dude, don't attack the process (like Trump)…. you're losing (again), just man-up!

Otherwise, tell us you didn't agree to the debate rules??

LOL

If someone posits the existence of two fundamental substances in order to account for the difference between mind and body, then the burden is on them to show that the difference necessitates that there be two substances.

Indeed, it's reciprocity.

If someone posits the existence of something the burden is on them. Because they posit it does not mean that it becomes something that others must show to be false unless there is sufficient evidence to show that it is true.

There is no burden of proof in metaphysical discussions, though.

Of course, but it's like committing a logical fallacy to deny the antecedent by offering no justification/explanation for the denial.. One has reciprocity in advancing their own position by whatever logical means is appropriate without such fallacy(s). Is that what you're saying?

Point taken. Nothing is proven. It is more a matter of making an argument persuasive enough to convince someone to accept that there must be two substances.

No need to deny what has not been shown to be something that should be accepted. Suppose I was to say that there are three substances. Does that mean you must show that there are not?

Does that mean you must show that there are not?

If I was going to deny that [a] supposition, well yes. I mean, if one say's 'no that's not true' and offers no counter argument, then why shouldn't one say 'yes that's true' instead? (Reason usually compels people to believe what they believe.) If they say yes, they say yes for a reason. If they say no, they say no for a reason.

I could be missing the obvious, but is that what you're asking?

I could be missing the obvious, — 3017amen

The obvious is that in any argument or proof there must be something that ties the conclusion to the premises - the knot being either all right or all wrong. In syllogisms that's both form and rules. One of those is distribution, which insures that what is said in the conclusion accords with the premises - this concerning generality and particularity. One test of particular proofs is, if you can substitute for the P (predicate) any X, such that the "proof" is also a proof for all X, then you really have not proven anything.

Failure to observe this means that the argument is nonsense.

The obvious is that in any argument or proof there must be something that ties the conclusion to the premises - the knot being either all right or all wrong — tim wood

That's not what we're talking about. Stay out of this grown-up talk Tim :razz: .

We're talking about logically fallacies and why people agree or disagree with other's. In other words, some reasoning has to do with some emotional experience one has had... . In your case, emotions are more noteworthy. Kind of like Voluntarism, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
LOL

I am not personally in the business of trying to convince others, but more into trying to understand what they say, whether it means anything, whether it is internally coherent, and what I can steal from it for my own use.

If they say yes, they say yes for a reason. If they say no, they say no for a reason. — 3017amen

You're confusing "reason" for "cause." Not the first, least, nor no doubt last, of your confusions.

I could be missing the obvious, but is that what you're asking? — 3017amen

I am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true

and what I can steal from it for my own use. — Olivier5

But if you are not convinced that there is something in what is said worth stealing you wouldn't.

As I see it, it is not so much a matter of convincing others but of making an argument that is convincing. It seems curious to me if someone were to make an argument they did not intent to make convincingly.

And if he assumed the world could not be understood by human minds, then he wouldn't try day after day to do so. — Olivier5

We're getting off track, but the universe needn't be completely understandable. Understandable theories like thermodynamics, chemistry, etc. turn out to be approximations to theories much harder to comprehend.

I know, but that's a bit of a detail. It doesn't alter the argument.

am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true — Fooloso4

see it, it is not so much a matter of convincing others but of making an argument that is convincing. It seems curious to me if someone were to make an argument they did not intent to make convincingly. — Fooloso4

I think in large part you answered most of the question. But it is neither always necessary to convince other's of your own truth (Hanover alluded to that in the debate-Subjectivity), but if one were to advance an argument either for or against something, it seems you agree that usually one provides reasons for their belief.

As an aside, I was debating a Dr. friend of mine about political ideology and I argued that if one believes something (and either advances or takes a position one way or another), they have the obligation to at least explain why they believe what they believe regardless of the belief. Of course, that's not the same as trying to change someone's belief about that same thing (political ideologies). At some point, in a formal debate one has to advance their position by similar reciprocity to be convincing. But again, that doesn't mean you're trying to insist that they change their view.

(Their truth is their truth. The question becomes why or how/when , etc... .)

I think this also speaks to some of Hanover's arguments specifically referencing one's own truth.:
Subjectivity and Philosophy:

From the latin “subjectum”.

Its primary sense tells us that there is a term affirm or deny something, in a proposal. More metaphysically, Subject is synonymous with substance be real support for attributes or accidents. It is also the person subject to a sovereign authority in politics, and the knowing mind in the theory of knowledge.

Definitions of Philosophers:

– Schopenhauer

“It’s who knows everything, without being yourself known is the subject. The subject is, therefore, the bedrock of the world, the invariable condition, always implied in any phenomenon, any object, because all that exists is only for the subject.

As you may know, there are all sorts of other metaphysical theories on this phenomena of self-awareness.

You're confusing "reason" for "cause." Not the first, least, nor no doubt last, of your confusions. — tim wood

Start a thread and call it Reasons and Causes. Include either philosophy or cognitive science quotes or whatever is appropriate. Just a thought.

But if you are not convinced that there is something in what is said worth stealing you wouldn't.

As I see it, it is not so much a matter of convincing others but of making an argument that is convincing. It seems curious to me if someone were to make an argument they did not intent to make convincingly. — Fooloso4

Agreed. If you write a post, try to make it convincing. But don't assume that anyone will actually be convinced, at least immediately. Even if they are, they will probably not tell you about it.

People don't like to publicly concede a point, in general. They take it as humbling or humiliating. Their first reaction
to a new idea (new to them) is generally to appear to reject it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is actually rejected. Often what happens is that a good idea will "germinate" in an open mind. It will need some time to "grow" in this new ecosystem: the mind newly exposed to it. In my experience, this process takes a minimum if two weeks.

If you need to convince someone of something you think is true, don't yell. Don't push too hard. Just plant a seed, gently and firmly. If the idea is a good one, if it was well expressed, and if the person is not a complete idiot, chances are that it will grow in his or her mind, slowly. Give it some time. And come back to it once in a while. Bis repetitas placent.

Ultimately you might note that the people who initially rejected your idea start to defend it. If that happens, don't tell them "I told you so". Just say: "yes, I think I agree with you."