(January 18, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, you disagree with these statements. You are not convinced by the things that convince me. It isn't for irrationality but for a disagreement over propositions. You have demanded full knowledge, and you have stated that things may not be as they seem. Neither of these, are criticisms of -any- given proposition. They are criticisms on the efficacy of reason.Look, I have experiences, and unless otherwise compelled, I will take them as the basis of reality: that reality is experiential. I don't find the materialist position that compelling, because it is not coherent with my experiences. There's nothing irrational about skepticism in the face of insufficient evidence.
Quote:Stolen concept, as we've been discussing for pages....just one of the many variations on the theme of self refuting ideas. I doubt you're going to stop, you claimed that it was central to your POV. I've not only told you what it was called, and how you did it, I've explained why it doesn't work(and this wouldn't be first time we've had this convo). But let's pretend that we haven't been having that discussion, because that's going to super productive.I think you are being a bit condescending, here. I know that you like to say "stolen concept," and I disagree with your position that my position involves stolen concepts. You don't get to take a monopoly on the observation of phenomena, because observation, or even ideas about objects and properties, are not exclusive to your world view.
Quote:I can see -why- you've come to the points you have, after accepting what you cannot. They would follow, if anything could follow.....but nothing follows a self refuting idea....even if it were ultimately true, in a sense unrelated to argument, a brute fact.I think we'll have to take a break here. It's not so much that you are so horribly wrong, it's that we have both arrived at a point where we are not saying original. I guess it's a Latin-American standoff.
