have all been wrong before." >>>
means did you discover that you were wrong? Please show your work. Watch
those stolen concepts!>>>
"Enough on the
Oh, if only that were
so! But still you commit this fallacy almost every time you make a
statement. I will continue to point them out. But it's clear you're tired of
"In order for me
to steal them, you must show that they do not belong to my stated
You misunderstand the
nature of the fallacy. I provided five or six links in response to
lordbyron's request that I explain the nature of this fallacy. Did you not
read the articles to which I provided links?
Indeed, since you are a theist, I think
stolen concepts do belong to your stated position. And I've exposed them to
"As you'll notice
since you must have read the previous post, the axioms that you asserted
where contained within my worldview."
Only as stolen
concepts (since you reject the validity of the senses, the means by which
they are known).
"There is no
reason for you to assume I am stealing them from your point of view when
they fit in my worldview too."
Yes, there is. You assert concepts yet
deny the means by which you can be aware of them. Those are stolen concepts,
"As to how I
discovered that I was wrong, it is a simple matter. I have seen
contradictory data (for instance, I answered the phone but it was still
ringing unanswered) thereby forcing me to conclude that one of the two data
sources was wrong."
"inaccurate" perception was corrected by an "accurate"
perception? Above, you mentioned that you "have seen contradictory
data." By what means were you able to see these data? Suddenly, it
seems you are saying that the senses are now valid after all, if sense
perception is the means by which you determined that your initial inferences
and conclusions were wrong.
"Since the dream
data source was not valid, I was able to determine that that source was
But by what means were you able to make
"However, as I
have stated, if reality is an illusion on a grand scale where we did not
even know it was an illusion, it would be impossible for us to know whether
or not it was real."
What is your definition of 'reality'?? How
did you form it?
you getting this claim, and how was it established? Why should we accept it?
Just because you state it? Do you ever argue for your premises?>>>
CertainVerdict--I have asked you the exact same questions."
And I have answered
them, like a good sport.
"Why is it that
you get to get away with it, but then are mad when I do the same
Get away with what?
I've taken great pains to answer virtually every detail of your posts, yet
you have not addressed hardly one question in my many posts. And where have
I gotten mad? I have not been mad at all. Perhaps this is an inference which
you made in haste from what you read?
"If you can claim
to have unprovable axioms that you hold to, then why can't I?"
Because I identified
the means by which I am aware of mine, and you have not.
"And again it
doesn't matter "where [I am] getting this claim"--the source
doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not you can refute the
It doesn't matter to
me. You've already refuted yourself. You've done everyone's work for them.
dreaming? Dreaming as opposed to what? Where did you get these concepts? By
what means do you distinguish dreaming from non-dreaming, Peter? I don't
suppose you'll answer these questions. You don't answer questions, you just
go merrily along on your wild goose hunt.>>>
"There you go
with more ad hominum argumentation."
Where did I put
forward an ad hominem argument? Nowhere have I inferred that your
conclusions are unsound on the basis of your insufficient character. I
simply ask questions repeatedly, and you repeatedly fail to address them. Does
pointing this out constitute an ad hominem argument in your view?
"I can't help but
point out that you have not actually interacted with my argument at
To be honest, I'm
still waiting for you to put forward an argument.
"All you've done
is question some definitions on common terms."
Oh, I've done much
more that that, Peter. I've pointed out how habitually you commit the
fallacy of the stolen concept. This is quite significant.
everyone would think similiar (or are you a deconstructionalist who thinks
that words don't mean anything anymore?)."
Whether everyone should or should not
agree on definitions is irrelevant. The fact is, most people do not in
philosophy. That is why I ask for clarification, and you yourself agreed
that this is a wise policy. Now you're complaining about it.
"Dreaming is the
state whereby while a person sleeps false sensory data is interpreted by the
brain as having actual substance."
I've not heard this
definition put forth for 'dreaming' before. Sensory data of what?
What do you mean by "substance" in this context? (Good thing I
asked what you mean by 'dreaming'; so far, it doesn't make a lot of sense to
"We determine the
difference by comparing it to our lives when we are awake."
By what means do we do
point that you continue to ignore is that if we cannot step outside of our
senses in the so-called "real world" then there is no way to
verify that what we claim for the real world is actually accurate."
What do you mean by
"step outside of our senses"? Do you mean DENY them? Do you think
knowledge is acquired by denying sense?
"You admit that
you assume the universe is real (and even claim that you have no need to
"But that doesn't
give us certain knowledge on anything."
Of what do you want
certain knowledge, Peter?
"I'll be willing
to be psychotics think their delusions are actually real too, and they can't
tell the difference most of the time."
But somehow, you can, right? Can you tell
us the means by which you make such distinctions?
the validity of the notion "essence of existence" (you have not
attempted to validate this dichotomy here; indeed, it was one of
Aquinas' major errors). Instead of what you write here, I would suggest:
"The fact that existence exists does not change.">>>
of existence" I merely meant whatever exists is."
Then the concept
'essence' is unnecessary, since we already have the concept 'existence' for
this. Again, as I stated in an earlier post, 'essence' is an epistemological
concept, for it is used in isolating definitions. It does not apply to
existence as such, since existence cannot be defined in terms of prior
concepts. Existence is existence, i.e., something is itself, i.e., A is A.
"In other words,
existence must be something, for if it is nothing then it doesn't
Agreed. That which
exists is itself. But this does not necessitate the concept 'essence'.
"The fact that existence exists does not change." But what
is that existence that exists?"
Existence. Again, the
concept 'existence' is not defined in terms of prior concepts. Remember:
'existence' is an axiomatic concept, i.e., irreducible.
"I am maintaining
that whatever existence is it is unchangeable."
Does New York have a population? Does that
population exist? Does that population remain constant from year to year?
"Are you going to
Do you think I need to?