-
I have an autographed copy of Hamowy's take on the Canadian medical system, published by the Fraser Institute. My professor was originally his student at the University of Alberta. Hamowy was pretty bitter about being stuck up in Canada--because of the cold, you see :)
-
This reminds me of de Jasay's "Your dog owns your house," essay. Obligation already discharged, sir. Already discharged.
-
[quote] Consider if I say: A exists B exists A = B So then A and B are the same thing: what what thing? Either A, or B, or something else.[/quote] Of course. But EMers deny A completely, so there is nothing for it to be identical with, in contrast to ITers. So there is a substantive difference. ITers think mental states really are real, since all mental
-
Identity theory: Mental states really do exist. Propositional attitudes can be linked to certain brain states. EM: Mental states do not exist. They are completely illusory. Propositional attitudes cannot be linked to brain states. Apply Leibniz's law of the indiscernability of identicals. Ergo, identity theory is not equivalent to EM, since IT possesses
-
[quote]That means no mind at all. Identity theory = pure eliminative materialism.[/quote] Identity theory is not eliminative materialism. Identity theory =df S is in mental state X if and only if S is in brain state Y. Eliminative materialism 'eliminates' discussion of folk psychology or mental states altogether and prefers we adopt some sort
-
The truth-value of the premises is an entirely different thing from the validity of logic itself. You're just equivocating on the definition of logic, which in our case here can only result in conceptual muddiness. In fact, if you take the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, then if you still have complains about the premises, then
-
Saying that science can disprove logic is like saying science can find a four-sided triangle. Once you understand what logic is, you'll see that it's absolutely nonsensical and ridiculous to say that quantum mechanics can 'disprove it' or radically modify our conception of it. Science can't prove or disprove logic and mathematics
-
OP. On second thought, if the OP really is 15 years old, then props. However, a little philosophy is a dangerous thing. I suggest that you go read more--much more in the philosophy of logic.
-
Are you seriously serious right nao bro?
-
I'm working on this very area right now. I'd also be interested in a response from Block on whether he accepts completely Rothbard's model based on natural law and on how he integrates this with argumentation ethics, if at all.