How do you refute this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
It’s your claim. The burden of proof lies on you . 😉
Click to expand...
Please read the title of thread.
Click to expand...
Asking for the refutation of a claim – mind you, it’s just a claim, not an argument or proof! – in the title of a thread doesn’t absolve you from the obligation to offer arguments for your claim. 😉
Gorgias said:
In any case, your argument fails: your putative demon, himself, truly exists, right? If so, then someone who can create reality (aside from illusion) would have had to have created him . Therefore, the basis of reality is a god who is good, not an evil, illusion-peddling demon. 👍
Click to expand...
God doesn’t create evil or Demon. 😉
[/quote]

Ahh, but if the demon truly exists, then he must have been created by an entity which creates reality, not illusion. Therefore, since he is capable of creating only illusion, he can not have created himself, nor can a demonic colleague have created him. And therefore, you’re left with two choices:
  • infinite regress
  • admission that your theory cannot hold up to scrutiny
Enjoy! 😉
 
Why can’t one personify organization? Isn’t that what “the soul is the form of the body” does?

You have a lot of rules about your “experiencer” that you pull out as you wish. It is causing a lot of problems in the discussion. You really should answer “what is an experiencer?”

The definition I am using for experiencer is a simple “who or what receives the information from an experince.”
 
Gorgias said:
Asking for the refutation of a claim – mind you, it’s just a claim , not an argument or proof! – in the title of a thread doesn’t absolve you from the obligation to offer arguments for your claim. 😉
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that I provide an argument. I said if you could refute this claim.
Gorgias said:
Ahh, but if the demon truly exists , then he must have been created by an entity which creates reality , not illusion . Therefore, since he is capable of creating only illusion, he can not have created himself, nor can a demonic colleague have created him . And therefore, you’re left with two choices:
  • infinite regress
  • admission that your theory cannot hold up to scrutiny
Enjoy! 😉
Click to expand...
Why Demon should be a creature? Why He should create Himself?
 
STT said:
I didn’t say that I provide an argument. I said if you could refute this claim.
Click to expand...
To which I responded “it’s up to the person who makes a claim to defend it, not to his listeners to refute a claim without argument.” 😉
STT said:
Why Demon should be a creature? Why He should create Himself?
Click to expand...
He has to have existence in order to be able to ‘create’ an ‘illusion’. From whence does he receive existence?
 
Dovekin said:
Why can’t one personify organization? Isn’t that what “the soul is the form of the body” does?
Click to expand...
Because organization is only a way to arrange particles. It doesn’t have any essence. More than that if we accept that soul is organization then we have to accept that everything has soul.
Dovekin said:
You have a lot of rules about your “experiencer” that you pull out as you wish. It is causing a lot of problems in the discussion. You really should answer “what is an experiencer?”
Click to expand...
I have a definition for mind which is experiencer also: The essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and cause.
Dovekin said:
The definition I am using for experiencer is a simple “who or what receives the information from an experince.”
Click to expand...
And you are claiming that organization can experience?
 
Gorgias said:
To which I responded “it’s up to the person who makes a claim to defend it, not to his listeners to refute a claim without argument.” 😉
Click to expand...
You are not making any sense. 😉
Gorgias said:
He has to have existence in order to be able to ‘create’ an ‘illusion’. From whence does he receive existence?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t receive His existence from any being. He is existence.
 
STT said:
What is the relation between being existence and being able to create illusion but not reality?
Click to expand...
If he is the perfection of existence itself, then creation of anything less than reality (i.e., creation of “illusion”) would be out of character with his very nature.
 
Gorgias said:
If he is the perfection of existence itself, then creation of anything less than reality (i.e., creation of “illusion”) would be out of character with his very nature.
Click to expand...
Perfect illusion. How about that?

What is your definition of reality and illusion, by the way?
 
Technically, soul and body are the experiencer, but we lopped off the sensory part for convenience. Every ‘thing’ does have a soul in aristotlean thought, though not a rational one.

I am not claiming that organization can experience, just asking why you say it cannot. I gave an analogy of how organization could experience with the polygons being incorporated into polyhedra. You made a claim about that, with no support, hard to respond to.
 
Dovekin said:
Technically, soul and body are the experiencer, but we lopped off the sensory part for convenience. Every ‘thing’ does have a soul in aristotlean thought, though not a rational one.
Click to expand...
So everything is alive and has a spiritual element?
 
Every living thing has a soul according to Aristotle. Sorry, I left out the living before. It is what makes a living thing alive.

Spiritual is another issue entirely, though related.

It is within that context that I proposed that organization might experience experiences, the organization and the particles together form the experiencer. The particles affect the organization, and are affected by the organization, such that they are inseparably one.
 
Dovekin said:
Every living thing has a soul according to Aristotle. Sorry, I left out the living before. It is what makes a living thing alive.

Spiritual is another issue entirely, though related.

It is within that context that I proposed that organization might experience experiences, the organization and the particles together form the experiencer. The particles affect the organization, and are affected by the organization, such that they are inseparably one.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. But that is not a proof that reality is like that.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Not a proof. Just a suggestion of the way a mental state can experience a mental state that does not fit with your rejection of the possibility of such a thing.
 
Dovekin said:
Nope. Not a proof. Just a suggestion of the way a mental state can experience a mental state that does not fit with your rejection of the possibility of such a thing.
Click to expand...
So the title is related to a valid question.
 
Last edited:
This may be a questions only @Discobot can address objectively since A.I. life forms operate outside of experience as we know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top