Labels and assertions, that's all you've got.
Express everything in the form of a deductively valid argument or say nothing.

"Terrapin does not accept something, therefore it is false" is not evidence. It's an absurd principle that has nothing to be said for it.

If ten people report that the criminal was wearing a red hat, that's good evidence the criminal was wearing a red hat.

Not to you though. No, someone who reasons like that has committed a fallacy according to you - which means it must be true that they have.

You don't have any arguing skills, Terrapin. Present an actual argument and stop thinking that if you deny or don't accept something, that constitutes good evidence that the proposition in question is false.

Ah shall we have another pointless exchange in which you make random assertions, fail to argue anything, and then make my personality the object of your attention instead? Go away Terrapin, you're not worth the trouble.

Arrr, are you feeling stupid? Make an argument Terrapin and stop blubbing you self-centred snowflake.

Like most narcissists you think that the test of whether someone can argue well is whether they say things you agree with. Infant.

All talk, no trouser.

Show me how to argue well, Terrapin. Present a deductively valid argument that has the negation of one of my premises as a conclusion and premises of its own that are more prima facie plausible than mine.
Oh, of course, first you need to scurry around the internet looking up what those words mean....

Show it, don't spray it.

And you made an irrelevant point in response.

But by all means show me to be wrong. Just try and do so without being insane.

Premise 1 is self-evidently true. It is not self-evidently true to those with limited powers of reflection, of course, or to cats, or the insane. But it is self-evidently true and it is appealed to by all of those who engage in serious intellectual inquiry.

So, on what basis do you believe that this argument is valid:

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore, Q

Look, put down your book of fallacy titles and get real. Present a deductively valid argument that has the negation of my premise as a conclusion and that has premises that are more plausible than any of mine.
If you can't do that - and you won't be able to - I'll accept that there is a reasonable doubt about its truth.

On what basis? Presumably you don't think that Terrapin Station is God and determines what's true. If you do think that, then you reject my premise because you're mad, which doesn't worry me in the slightest because I'm interested in what's true, not in what I can get a crazy person to believe.
So, on what basis do you reject it?

Do you deny the principle?

Because that's not all I'm saying.

"other things being equal".

Yes.

The other things being equal clause is important, for it is easy to conceive of circumstances under which a rational intuition would not constitute good evidence. For instance, if there's a drug that induces the rational intuition that P is true regardless of whether P is actually true or not, and we find that we have all taken that drug, then the fact we all get the rational intuition that P is true would not count as evidence that P is true.

Nevertheless, we could only discover that we had good reason to think we had taken such a drug (and thus discover that we had good reason to discount the relevant intuitions) on the basis of other rational intuitions. And so it is only if the principle is true that we even have the means to discover when the other things being equal clause is not met.

Yes, I agree that someone could say that about the version of the principle expressed in the argument - that is, they could deny it without affirming it. The problem, however, is that the principle they do have to affirm still has to give rational intuitions probative force and the fact they have decided only to give their own any probative force is clearly arbitrary and prejudiced. So, yes, someone could deny 1, but they could not deny 1 reasonably. That is, someone who denied 1 on the grounds that they think this principle - if and only if something appears to be the case to me is there any good evidence that it is the case - is true, is simply not a reasonable person, for they have given their own rational intuitions privileged status on an arbitrary basis. I have no problem acknowledging that wholly unreasonable people can reject a premise - they can and will reject any premise. But a reasonable person who acknowledges that their appearances have probative force is going to accept that, other things being equal, so do the appearances of others. Thus, I don't think there is any reasonable way to deny 1.

I do not understand your point about divisibility. Our reason represents our minds to be indivisible. That there are some theories about what the mind is that would, if they were true, allow the mind to be divisible, is neither here nor there. Here's such a theory - the theory that our minds are pieces of cheese. That theory - and it is good to have fancy terms for ridiculous theories, so let's call it Mental-fromagism - would allow that the mind is divisible, for cheese is clearly divisible. But so what? How's that evidence that the mind is divisible? What appearances can you appeal to that even challenge, never mind overturn, those appearances that speak in favour of premise 2?

Which premise are you disputing? Or do you think the argument is invalid?

No it isn't. All arguments make appeal to intuitions. It is only by intuition that we know that an argument is valid. What you actually mean is that when someone shows that rational intuitions imply the truth of a thesis that you dislike, then you categorise the intuitions as table poundings rather than do something clever, like address the argument.

Irrelevant.

So a MIND is an object and a conscious state is a state of it.

And what kind of object is the mind? Why it is an immaterial object, not a material one as my arguments demonstrate.

You're not making any sense at all.

You've just said that the brain can be divided and that the brain can't be divided in the same sentence.

How many times - the BRAIN can be divided. It is the MIND that can't be divided.

So all along you actually agree that the mind is immaterial?!!

Did you not notice that I was arguing for precisely that thesis? So why are you telling me I'm wrong, when you think I'm right - it makes no sense!!

My arguments imply that the mind is an immaterial thing. Not a material thing. An immaterial thing.

No, to everyone.
So you think wetness can just exist? Wetness is a property of liquids.
Imagine I go into a shop and I ask for a wet blanket. They say they don't have any blankets. I say "oh, well I'll just take the wet then". I'd be asked to leave, yes? Because I'm clearly mad.
You can't just have 'wet'. You can have a wet this or a wet that. But you can't just have wet.

Likewise, you can't just have conscious states. They are states - the clue is in the name - of a thing. What thing? Why a MIND of course.

I don't know what you mean by a 'metaphysical thing'. Do you mean that it is immaterial? In that case you agree with me - I've been arguing that the mind is an immaterial object, not a material object.

Your next claim - that the mind relies upon the brain - is false, but it is not something I argued for or against, so it is irrelevant in this context.

I said which ONE. One. One at a time.

Anyway, if you're denying both, then you're denying premise 1. So, you deny that extended objects are divisible.
Okay, er, explain that to me then. An extended object occupies some space, yes? It has to. Denying that is like denying that bachelors have to lack wives.
Any region of space is infinitely divisible, yes? If you don't believe me, start dividing some space and tell me when you've finished.
So, any extended object is going to be divisible.
Thus premise 1 is true and anyone who denies it is just plain confused.

Which premise are you disputing -just answer me that. Until you do, I'm not answering any more of your questions as you're just ignoring the arguments I've given.

To help you, if we agree that object A is a cube, and we agree that object B is a sphere, then we can conclude that object A is not object B, yes?

Why? Well, because if an object is a cube, then it is not also a sphere. Thus, if A is a cube and B is a sphere, we know that A is not B.

If an object is divisible, then it is not also indivisible.

So, if my BRAIN is divisible - and it obviously is - and my MIND is not divisible, then.....my MIND is not my BRAIN.

I don't understand that question or its relevance.

I said that the brain - you know, the meaty thing in your head - can be divided. I said that all extended things can be divided. This is not deniable.

I then said that the mind - the thing you think with - cannot be divided.

I then concluded - validly - that the mind is therefore not an extended object.

Now why are you asking me where bits of brain might be. I don't know - the last place you put it, probably.

OMG -the mind IS an entity. By definition, it is the OBJECT that is bearing your conscious states.

Conscious states are NOT objects.

Minds ARE objects.

Conscious states are states.

Minds are objects.

Conscious states are states of an object called a....wait for it....MIND.

Do you agree that all extended objects can be divided? If the answer is 'yes' then you agree with me.

Do you agree that minds cannot be divided? If the answer is 'yes' then you agree with me.

What question? I am finding you extremely difficult to understand.
Why not just say which premise you are disputing - and just focus on one at a time.

No, you beg the question by suggesting that we drop the word 'mind' .
The mind is, by definition, that object - whatever it may be - that is bearing conscious states.

When it comes to animal bodies we do not attribute conscious states to the bodies, rather we attribute minds to the bodies. Hence why we wonder what might happen to our minds after our bodies crumble to dust. And hence why we can coherently wonder the same about animal minds.

The issue is exactly what a mind is. This isn't a matter that can be settled by stipulation or by empirical investigation. We have to consult our reason.

I have presented three arguments that imply the mind is an immaterial thing, a soul. So I have shown how, in three separate ways, our reason represents our minds to be immaterial objects.

To challenge this evidence you need either to challenge a premise or show that the arguments are not valid.

I don't follow you. I was simply admitting that though it is in general wrong to procreate, there are circumstances where it may be permissible or even obligatory - such as when procreating is the only way to save one's own life, or the only way to save the lives of numerous others.

I'm not turning consciousness into a thing. It isn't a thing. I am quite sure of it. Consciousness is a state of a thing, not a thing.

Now that you know that I'm not reifying consciousness, which premise do you dispute and why?

You KNOW there's an error - what, because you have special knowledge given to you in dreams or something?

No, you're not challenging either premise. You're just singularly failing to grasp basic logic.

here's my argument:

1. A is divisible
2. B is not divisible
3. therefore, A is not B.

You: so, I am going to challenge A. Imagine an A, if you will. It is divisible, is it not. Now, why do you think that B divides when A divides.

Me: that's not what I think and that doesn't challenge A. That confirms A. And I said that B is indivisible, not divisible.

You: but help me here, why do you think that B can be divided by dividing A.

Me: er, I don't think that - I think the exact opposite. Which premise are you disputing?

You: I am trying to show you the way, trying to give you my some flavour of my immense wisdom, for I am impressed at scholars who knew next to nothing and so made us stuff that would only impress a five year old, but who do need to be read in the right spirit to be appreciated - that is, a spirit of total and utter ignorance.

Me: what are you on about?

Er, yes. See argument and get over yourself.

Yes it is. This is profitable isn't it - you pronouncing things to be the case, me explaining why they're not, and then you pronouncing again. Really, really useful. Well done. Top marks.

I too must run away for a sleep, but will check back tomorrow.