Joseph Polanik the game player V
March 31st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the Game Player part IX :: Joseph Polanik the game player II
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>but, there is no way to save your argument in its present form without
> >>denying the assumption that one can not attribute predicates to
> >>nothingness.
>
> >>if it is so important to save your argument; then, just deny this
> >>assumption.
>
> >>go ahead. make my day.
>
> >Done.
>
> >So now, why do you assert it rather than deny it? (without appealing to
> >your first law of reality, of course)
>
> I’ve told you why. this assumption is built into predicate logic.
>
> why do you deny it rather than assert it?
Here’s why:
>>> >>>>>1. I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions.
>>> >>>>>2. Therefore, if I know that I exist, I must know that there is
>>> >>>>>something which remains identical throughout all my perceptions.
>>> >>>>>3. But there is no evidence that anything remains identical
>>> >>>>>throughout all my perceptions.
>>> >>>>>4. Therefore, I don’t know that I exist.
>>>
>>> >Step 1 is stated as a necessary condition of My existence - i.e., that
>>> >I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions. Denying that
>>> >would be denying an identical referent for the identical first person
>>> >pronoun that I use to refer to myself at any point in my life (I was
>>> >born, I am now X, I will die).
That’s my argument against the particular “something” (i.e., “I”) in
question here to which the predicates are to be attached. Now, don’t try
the old trick of saying you answered this before, because this was your
answer:
>>> I-2 reject the first and third of the examples you give. I-2 know that
>>> I-1 was born and that I-1 will die;
to which I responded:
>> I-1 is a physical body, so given Descartes’ arguments in the First Meditation, how again do we “know” that there are any physical bodies at all? It’s astounding that at this point, after I’ve cited Descartes’ First Meditation numerous times now, you just glibly bring in I-1 without addressing his arguments there.
There you go - I have an argument, and you have a pure assumption. So,
address the argument.
> >>you have yourself pointed out that anyone who googles our names will
> >>likely notice our respective argumentative behavior. do you really
> >>want your professional collegues to find you claiming the power to
> >>assign predicates to nothingness?
>
> >You’re right. I’d better fix that now:
>
> >Philosophy requires reasons or evidence for what one asserts.
> >Therefore, until further reasons or evidence are given for said
> >assertion, Polanik’s acceptance of it is unphilosophical.
>
> philosophy also requires reasons or evidence for what one denies.
See above.
> right now you are either asserting a set of three premises that lead to
> a self-refuting conclusion or you are denying an assumption that is
> built into predicate logic.
>
> why don’t you tell us which choice you’ve made and what your reasons for
> it are?
See above.
