Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5478629" data-attributes="member: 15538">I take it you've never mixed paint. Also, I feel the need to point out that astronmers deal almost entirely in multiple spectra, in addition to having some serious red-shift issues to look at.Well, you've proven one thing: You didn't read a single bit of what I wrote in that paragraph.That's actually not true. There are thousands. I can identify another human being who has those identical characteristics, yet shares no more than a handful of molecules in common with you. Go back about three years and find the person living under your identity, and you will discover an entirely different physical being with all of those characteristics.<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583" target="_blank">Atomic Tune-Up: How the Body Rejuvenates Itself : NPR</a>What if I remove your fingerprints and scars, then clone you from some of your DNA? Wouldn't that make the clone "you" and the current you no-longer-you?You have a very strange understanding of what philosophy is for. For instance, the people writing the DSM-V, which defines mental illness and will affect billions of people to the tune of trillions of dollars, are faced with countless really difficult philosophical questions which must be answered to some satisfactory degree for them to finish. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in solving philosophical problems, such as what defines a human being."There is no consensus to be reached" is not only logically impossible (otherwise we couldn't agree that we couldn't agree) but can be empiracally be demonstrated to be false, since several people in this discussion have agreed on many things."Boolean truth" is a nonsense phrase. Boolean logic produces the same kind of truth as any other kind of logic. How is that everyone can be correct but no one can be wrong? What if one of us believes the others are wrong, are they also correct? Radical subjectivism is a failed approach to truth. Also, Boolean logic doesn't allow for more than one truth. You're using "subjective" in an unprecise way. You are implying that because we each have subjective opinions, talking about those opinions is subjective. But actually, we can verify with each other that we hold those opinions. Wittgenstein's later theory talked about the idea of a "private language" and concluded there is no such thing. I'm pointing these things out in order to be informative, perhaps to spur others to read up on these topics, perhaps even so you can reflect later on what I have said and consider whether there may be some value in it. At this point it appears to me you are mainly interested in squelching dissent and have little real interest in what I have to say. Since you're intent on polluting the discussion and I can't stop you, I'm pretty much done for now.</blockquote>

Verification