On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:08:04 AM UTC+1, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/25/2015 10:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 10/25/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett < <javascript:> >>> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>>> The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is >>>> physical existence. We can understand imaginary things, but we have no >>>> direct evidence for their existence -- certainly not for their physical >>>> existence. >>>> >>> >>> Do you acknowledge that we have no evidence that such things do not >>> exist? And therefore, we should at least remain agnostic on the idea rather >>> than reject the idea out of hand? >>> >>> >>> Imaginary things do not have physical existence. >>> >>> >>> I think that's why they're called imaginary. I think Jason wants us to >>> believe we can't think of imaginary things. If you think of it, it exists. >>> >>> >> You and Bruce want us to believe if we can imagine it, and we can't see >> it, then it definitely does not exist anywhere in reality. >> >> >> I only suggest that you proportion your belief to the evidence. If there >> is no evidence, not even indirect evidence, then it is that intellectual >> infirmity called "faith" to believe. >> >> Brent >> "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An >> agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is >> evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." >> --- Carl Sagan >> >> Ahh, but there is evidence for it. I just wanted you and Bruce to first > accept and agree to the idea that there is no evidence against it. >
Why? They and trolling Clark have demonstrated the desire to remain naive in terms of such assumptions repeatedly, essentially blurting "my way or the highway because I am more awesome than you; believe me when I tell you reality is physical because it just is... you morons" like some helpless mantra of inverting the reversal over and over, consistently failing to address the eliminativism that would save them from being zombies, and not providing the clarity of what such reversal entails, if anything, for the mathematics of silly imaginary things that they *effin imagine* like physics. The imaginary bites and kicks back. In their faces. Right here. Now. This counts more as convincing evidence of lack of confidence in their "argument" and the apparent need for some self-hypnosis brainwash prayer technique to stay convinced, than convincing evidence that their wishful thinking is correct. Numbers being imaginary bullshit from which physics can be separated neatly and discreetly; that's some imaginary bullshit if there ever was any. But why even all this pretense to end up merely splitting fancy hairs? If people "argue" like this, one could settle the "argument" in the usual all too human fashion with "who has more guns or the longest dick". And the winner gets an ice cream and gets to call arithmetic his physical no real numbers bitch, how about that? Taking this position, they assume the reversal to be absurd, and fail to see that UDA refutes computationalism for them. Forest for trees. Let's go bowling. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
