Hi John,
On 11 Mar 2012, at 20:36, John Mikes wrote:
John,
'te bartender cuts in...' - I believe David indeed has no idea what
the "real point in issue" may be - he would have been addressing it.
There is NO real point.
In those "thought experiments" (euphemism for phantasm to justify
points of non-existence) certain prerequisites are also needed
(additional phantasms) and justification for them, too. Then there
are 'conclusions' imaginary and the consequences of such - built in.
I admire the patience of Bruno replying to all those (circular?
fantasy-related?) posts (I am not relating to your posts) - I lost
the endurance to follow all of them lately. I read a lot of David's
posts and think your expressed "...belie(f)ve your (i.e. David's)
thinking is naive simplistic and commonplace." is wrong.
Can't agree more.
It is a shame, because you seem to be a well-thinking and well-
educated guy who works with well-crafted logical argumentation.
I cannot raise my voice for/against indeterminacy because of my
agnostic worldview that postulates lots of unknown/unknowable
factors influencing our decisions - together with factors we know of
and acknowledge - so uncertainty may be ignorance-based, not only
haphazardous. A 'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of
belief for me - unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order'
we detect in the so far knowable nature (negating 'random'
occurrences that would screw-up any order, even the limited local
ones).
My worldview is my 'faith' - not subject to discussion.
Best,
Bruno
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
> John, I hope you will not think me impertinent, but you're
expending a
great deal of time and energy arguing with an elaborate series of
straw men. No doubt this is great fun and highly entertaining, but
would you consider the alternative of requesting clarification of the
real point at issue? It's painful to see you repeatedly arguing past
it.
If your thinking were clear and you understood what " the real point
at issue" was and you knew of a key question I have not answered you
would have certainly asked it somewhere in the above; but you did
not I think because you could not, and that fact makes me believe
your thinking is naive simplistic and commonplace. Prove me wrong.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.