rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
>>I see what you mean by fallacious logic. A solipsist wouldn't believe >>that there is an "everyone" each of whom could believe that he/she is a >>solipsist. More examples followed. [ROSEN] > As nonexistent, I see nothing whatsover fallacious about Richard's > solipsism. > > After all, someone has to exist. Why not Mr. Carnes? Why does someone HAVE to exist???? >>>This sentence should be disregarded, since it was inserted merely to >>>fill out the article. And *this* sentence isn't even in English, >>>although it may well seem so at first glance. >>I am aware that in Guocammoli it means "This sentence is actually in English" > That's not very logical, Rich. Obviously you don't know the Guocammoli language. What was illogical about it, Mr. Spock... I mean Ellis! >>> A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DOG >>... >> definitions, such as "God is a ... ." They are "true" only because they are >> relational symbological tautologies. Of course, if the thing described by >> the definition doesn't exist, e.g., unicorn, then the word doesn't represent >> something real.) > So "Dog exists" is tautologically true because "Dog" does not refer to > a genuine bona fide Real Physical entity, just as described by Lao Tzu: > (4) Existence flows from nothing.. Do you listen to everything written by a Chinese person? Do you believe in fortune cookies? (I do, it's the only occult belief I adhere to.) Great the sentence is true, thus Dog (or God) is not real. Great! >>>Arf, arf. By similar reasoning, one can show that humans have free >>>will. Refute *that*, Rich Rosen. >>Child's play. No kidding. I'm not impressed. This was not a good example of >>incredible paradoxical self-referentiality. Try again. :-) > Perhaps you might enjoy C.A. Campbell's characterization of free will as > a concept which is, like creativity, irreducible by rational explanation: > "If we mean by an intelligible act one whose occurrence is capable of > "being inferred, since it follows necessarily from something, > "then it is certainly true that the Libertarian's {= Freewiller MCE} > "free will is unintelligible. But that is only saying .. that > "the Libertarian's "free" act is not an act which follows necessarily > "from something! Back to acausality. What does "irreducible by rational explanation" MEAN? If anything? (That is, beyond "beyond our comprehension") > "Of course he can't. A free will is ex hypothesi the sort of thing of > "which the request for explanation is absurd. Meaning what? (Again, if anything...) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr