@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;168180 wrote:You said:
You use the word "define". Under normal usage, if you define A as B, then everything that is true of A is true of B. Is this the case? No. You can kick a socket ball out the way, but you cannot kick an idea out of the field.
Both a dog and a fish can be called an animal, are they both fully capable of the same things and contain the same properties? No, they're not. Animal is just a more abstract term, just as "thing" is a more abstract term. Animals share a property that makes them animals, just as objects and ideas do, which I explained, and it is not the ability to kick.
All Humans are mammals.
Not all mammals are Humans.
True or false?
If so, are humans and mammals the exact same thing? If so, how can some Mammals be Humans but not others? Really ponder this.
Quote:
It is always good to base certain views on the judgement of a community of scholars learned in the matter, until someone can convince the judgement of the majority are wrong. You disagree?
I disagree that any debate should come to be with the predisposition to any one argument based on any false concept, even
ad populum.
Quote:
How can you claim that something is inconceivable, but you have an idea of it? Don` t inconceivable means that you don` t have an idea of it?
Not necessarily. Having an idea of something without a conception of it is very well possible if the lack of such a thing would be impossible. If there are currently finite things, with a unlimited potential for things, then if one managed to take away things from existence one at a time and eventually eliminate everything since the limitation is 0. However, I can infinitely expand(which I've shown how to do plenty of times in this thread) because there's no limitation to how much can come to be. Infinity would then be the potential of things, and it could not represented any other way. Thus, infinity is the sum of all things.
Quote:
You said that the list of everything "expands", but this an a crazy idea. No, this is a stupid, stupid idea. An expansion implies an expansion rate. What the hell is the rate in this context? Is a joke?
The expansion rate is equal the amount of new things coming to be. I can't explain it beyond that but it simply must be, since with even this I am creating new ideas.
Quote:
What is your justification for "jon and mary" is one thing?
What is your justification for "Tongue, Legs, Arms, Heart etc.." as one thing? Are you saying a tongue is not a thing? Are you saying a heart is not a thing? Are you saying Jon would be Jon if he didn't have these things? If a single thing can only be one thing then Jon cannot be a thing since he is made of multiple things and I just showed you how.
You prove Jon is one thing. I just listed 4 distinct things that make up Jon.
Quote: here is a hint: You have to show it is an individual with properties different from jon, or mary.
Actually the thing you're not understanding is a dog is not different than an animal. A dog has the properties of an animal, it's simply more specific. So, if I looked at Jon and Mary and say a similarity, say, they're the only existence, then I can say they are Existence, one thing.
Quote:
Nothing, and something, or you call it 0, or 1 is not a property of anything. Again, existence is not a property.
If I have 0 apples I have no apples. I'm getting tired of explaining my arguments while yours are supposed to just be believed.
Quote:
What you say is completely ridiculous, and laughable. How much philosophy courses have you taken? Judging from the fact that you say " O is nothing", i say you are probable in high school, right?
No, I haven't been in high school for about 5 years now, though I question what my standing has to do with the argument, since if anyone spoke them, they would not change. Why would it matter if I was in High School? You still haven't combated them, you simply said they are "wrong" "stupid" and "laughable". Perhaps you would like to explain to me "why"?