The freewill argument from neuronal determinism argues that the only reason we can read thoughts (before they consciously occur) from brain scans, is that the mind consciously (to save energy and improve reaction time) moves certain decisions and information to the autonomic nervous system.
Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .
Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)
You and ecmandu commence an exchange here in which you focus the discussion on this:
My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.
You debate and discuss the relationship between pragmatism, consent violations and objective morality – as it is applicable to that which you both construe to be actual “content”.
Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.
Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .
Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)
No point in going around the bush, nothing definitive comes out of this cat and mouse , or it devolved(es) below an existential hold, onto the realm of paradox.
Again, merely an observation from dead center, and I am also striving to keep afloat.
Reason: ? Those who can not learn from history are condemmed and consumed to and by repeating it.
You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you. I don’t think he is. I don’t know why you are bringing me into this. The easiest way to test if he won’t do it is to agree. Let’s test your theory. YOu’ve already made more posts, I think, here in this thread, than he suggested the debate entail. Right now you are acting more like the one who is afraid. You might not be. You might be lazy. It might be something else. You’ll forgive me but your attitude towards him makes it hard for me to buy you won’t debate him because you don’t want to be cruel.
Actually, iambiguous is being cruel by not debating me, not just cruel to me, but everyone else on the boards as he continues, unobstructed, to spout his drivel.
My personality, a cajoling, or lack thereof, should not be the deciding factor - the content is all that matters for true seekers and defenders of wisdom.
I state to iambiguous that he has agreed with me if he refuses to debate me on an argument he has already stated is so easy for him, that it’s actually be cruel for him to debate me.
My terms are that the board members vote in an open vote.
I’m the only objectivist on these boards.
Iambiguous has so little to fear, yet he still runs away.
I’ve known this since this morning, but have been flooded all day and haven’t had time to start round 2 yet, but certainly will before bedtime for me tonight!