Not too long ago I allowed amnesty to those who have been banned from the blog in the past, on the theory that perhaps they had reconsidered their approach and thoughts about logic and logical discussions.
Almost immediately I had to reassert the ban on one individual, and others are finding their time becoming limited here.
PZ actually has a link to a list of people he has banned from his blog. I need to create the same sort of list, but with links to their comments for reference, so that sock puppets are also avoided. It's unfortunate that it comes to this, especially when all that is asked of commenters is that they be civil and accept logic as the basis of discussion.
If that needs clarification, by logic I mean the accepted methods of inductive and deductive logic - primarily deductive - as they are presented in college textbooks. This means that "I think I am logical" is NOT an acceptable approach to rational thinking. Nor is dodging questions, changing definitions, refusing to acknowledge logical errors (or worse, Special Pleading that they actually work fine for this particular case). Coversations can be impeded in a great many ways, because there are many types of falseness. In comparison, there is only one truth, the rest is not-truth (false). Impeding a conversation which is dedicated to finding that which is valid and that which is true, by asserting any and all manner of falseness, demanding that it be accepted, while not accepting either that the falseness shown to them applies to their assertion, or that the counter assertion is, in fact, within the bounds of logic, is merely obstructionism, not rational conversation. Such obstructionism will be pointed out, and then if it is not corrected, the offender will be banned.
If a commenter cannot even study logic enough to know what it actually is, and then insists on dominating discussions with absolute illogic, he is in jeopardy of losing his privileges here. Permanently.
5 comments:
Nothing but logic then. Agreed.
If you ignore this starting point, I will simply agree to disagree and I'll be done with your blog.
****************
Your worldview, regarding existence, starts with (and correct me if I am wrong!):
- 'I exist as an immaterial mind', as you posted on another comment thread.
(You started with what can be known though, so it might be a bit different. Again, correct me if I am wrong)
Your position thus assumes the immaterial exists, but the material could possibly not exist.
This means that it's possible for the immaterial to exist without the material.
Mine starts with:
- 'I assume reality is not an illusion. I exist as a both a material body and an immaterial mind'
I don't assume the immaterial does not exist and the material cannot not exist or else reality would be an illusion.
I thus don't have any conclusion regarding the existence of immaterial things yet.
Is something illogical here? Are there any fallacies? I don't see any in BOTH positions...
Good Grief. You want to go through the entire argument all over again? I don't think so. Review the prior comments at your own pleasure.
Also, I did receive your list of emails to be published. I will publish them on the sidebar, when I figure out how to do it.
You want to go through the entire argument all over again?
Sorry, no, that was not my intention. The goal here is this:
You claim my worldview is illogical. I present you what the basis for my world actually is. Tell me what's wrong with it.
- I assume reality is not an illusion
- I exist as a material body
- I exist as an immaterial mind
Hugo,
What you claim about our positions is false; the facts are back at Dec 5 and 6:
My process was not about starting with an "immaterial mind". Here are the starting steps from mine:
"A. The first brick is this: “I can know that I think, with certainty; if I do not think then I cannot know”. So “knowing” is like a first principle.
B. That’s where consciousness comes in: I must be conscious in order to think. So it is fairly certain that I am conscious.
C. Consciousness allows perceptions, including sensory perceptions as well as perceptions of memory and self, and it is the scaffold for reasoning and emotions and agency.
I can know that these attributes of consciousness exist, because they are both tautological and they leave tracks.
D. Reasoning and emotions are both defined as specific sets of characteristics of the thought process. They are subsets of thought processing.
E. Because I perceive and think, I can know the principles of rationality.
F. What is rationality? When perceptions of actuality match actuality.
G. If rational processes exist, are they subjective? Do they only apply as I wish them to apply? Or do they apply with consistency? If actuality is consistent, then rationality is consistent, and the processes are consistent.
H. Consistent with what? Actuality"
What you said my claim is, is false.
Your own process was not about starting with "both a material body and an immaterial mind": You explicitly claimed that everything except concepts were material. And you admitted to starting with Materialism to show that Materialism "makes sense". You refused to admit that circularity is a fatal flaw to your claim.
You have called me a "bigot" several times because of a continuous false interpretation you persistently make of my assertion, which you then twisted into a breech of your personal morality (whatever that is), and then you demanded that I recant.
Hugo, You make claims that are irrational; you do not take ownership for fallacies you assert; you are making false claims now concerning what was said, changing the goalposts at the last possible moment. This is not tolerable.
You are again terminated from commenting here on this blog.
Is E necessarily true?
One could argue that we are continuously mislead simply due to us being a collection of molecules that through random chance has produced me. That is, 'logic' may not be consistent (or at least, my mind may not be).
I think this is a conundrum for the Atheist...
Post a Comment