Schwitzgebel's "no relevant difference" like NTT (but valid?)

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Schwitzgebel's "no relevant difference" like NTT (but valid?)

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pmAs you have explained the traits under consideration, including traits that are logically and metaphysically impossible to change, your P2 seems to contradict itself making the entire argument fail due to the principle of explosion.

I'll spare you the "Chinese", you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

If you really maintain that ANY trait, including traits that are logically impossible to change based on the structure of P2, can be changed, a conclusion of "Therefore Santa Claus is real" would be just as valid, because ANYTHING follows from a contradiction.

So if P2 is inherently contradictory, it is not true that there are two categories "produces a contradiction" and "doesn't produce a contradiction"; they are one in the same, and mutually incoherent.

If you were to fix P2 by changing the wording or interpretation, you're either left with an obvious non sequitur or a circular argument that begs the question; neither are useful or convincing, and neither do what you want them to (the former leaves people to squabble over arbitrary exemptions, the latter is only an assertion).
_____________

Ask Yourself responds via voice, automatic transcript:
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .due to the principle of explosion.
So and this is just so typical so what has he done so far he's referred to traits that we don't know that he's talking about he's asserted that traits that we don't know what he's talking about are impossible to change he's asserted that the argument appears to contradict itself without any evidence and then he says if if all of that random bullshit that I have just bootstrapped up from nowhere without any evidence is true then the argument deduced fails due to the principle of explosion he links to the Wikipedia article on the principle of explosion and I mean this is just a basic principle that most people from philosophy will know about it's just the idea that once you have a contradiction in a system the whole thing collapses logically.

Um anyway so it's like so you've started this sentence by just a ton of baseless claims basically and it's not clear what you're talking about and then you link to some random philosophical concept as if that gives any weight to what you're saying it doesn't substantiate any of the claims you've made so you know he continues:
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .
If you really maintain that any trait including traits that are logically impossible to change based on the structure of p2. . .
what traits what are impossible to change what are you talking about
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .can be changed a conclusion of therefore Santa Claus is real would be just as valid because anything follows from a contradiction.
so again it's like here you have this person just going off now talking about the principle of explosion not talking about the original point all under the assumption which he hasn't substantiated that the argument contradicts itself how

like so the thing is with brains with common sense you can just unravel a like sophistry like that like nothing you just tease it apart like it's taking candy from a baby

but there are people who will actually fall for that so I don't know if this is helping give clarity to what I mean by like breaking things down to their bits and pieces I'll do a little more
brimstoneSalad wrote:So if P2 is inherently contradictory
still waiting for the evidence where is the evidence
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .it is not true that there are two categories produces a contradiction and doesn't produce a contradiction. . .
so again he's still proceeding under the unsubstantiated assumption that the thing is contra is inherently contradictory
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .they are one in the same and mutually incoherent.
and then he's made an assertion that does not even make sense like even assuming it is contradictory how does that mean that there aren't two categories of answers contradictory and not contradictory with respect to the traits that you plug in like either a trait generates a contradiction or a doesn’t if you're not consistent in discriminating based on the trait you're contradicting yourself if you are then you're not how how would the argument being inherently contradictory in this unproven sense that you haven't specified somehow mean that the argument doesn't produce contradiction or not produce contradiction if you reject P2 it's it's just the inability to actually stay on point and deliver something clearly so then I'll just do a bit more so
brimstoneSalad wrote:If you were to fix p2
how what are you talking about
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .by changing the wording and interpretation
again it's like wording and interpretation what's wrong with the wording what is wrong with the interpretation so this is now five paragraphs guys where he hasn't specified what the fuck he is talking about
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .either left with an obvious non sequitur
how how this is just you babbling shit out of your head as per fucking usual with no evidence at all
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .or a circular argument that begs the question. . .
how is it circular how does it beg the question and what are you even talking about
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .neither are useful or convincing. . .
okay circular arguments and begging the question are not useful and convincing yeah no shit you haven't demonstrated that's what's happening
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .and neither do what you want them to do. . .
what do you think that I want them what do you think that I think that I want them to do no idea no fucking idea
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .the former leaves people to squabble over arbitrary exemptions.
. .
the former being what? B's and this is what I also do I always go back and read to make sure I know what they're talking about the former is a non sequitur the latter is circular arguments that beg the question so a non sequitur leaves people to squabble over arbitrary exemptions how is how does that even make sense how is that true of a non sequitur what about a non sequitur leaves people to squabble over arbitrary exemptions it's a non sequitur the argument doesn't fucking make sense why would you be talking about exemptions the latter is an assertion sir a circular argument that begs the question is an assertion I guess that's a fair thing to say it's like I mean if you can't actually base the argument in anything you're just asserting it but I mean hopefully this is kind of making the point to all you guys about what I mean about just achieving clarity and thought and how once you have clarity and thought and once you can which which isn't a binary thing it's something I'm always working on and that you can all get better and better at but once you have that clarity and thought then you can look at something like that a heap of convoluted nonsense and just he's it apart with such ease so that's the kind of thinking that I would like to convey to people with this channel.

. . .

Nick Kaczmarek actually made a really good point the other day he would love that I I'm saying he's making a good point too bad he's not here to hear it but he uh he pointed out just our names say quite a lot about where we're coming from I mean what is my name my name is ask yourself it's like you know I think I have some points here but you know don't take my word for it not fucking trying to build a cult here it's like ask yourself if this makes sense don't take my word for it what's his name Philosophical Vegan, like just accept my philosophical master knowledge is what I get from a name like that
. . .
He tried to say that you can accept the Canary messes of name the trait and reject the conclusion and therefore the arguments invalid and I pointed out that if you accept the premises you're saying that humans have moral value you're saying that there's no trait in animals that if President humans would cause them to lose moral value so if there's no trait you can change all the traits that make a human into the same creature as an animal and then you'd be saying that that thing simultaneously has and doesn't have value so he can't get around that he knows I'm sure he's not stupid enough to actually think that that doesn't make sense I think that he knows that that demonstrates that the argument is valid so his response is to strawman what I'm saying as actually talking about physical objects having all of their traits equalized and therefore being shoved into the same physical space which would cause a nuclear explosion . . . just in case anyone's not clear on that like you say humans have moral value you say there's no trait so if there's no trait that you could switch they would make the human lose value you're saying you could switch every single trait and the thing doesn't have value but if you switch every single trait well then it's the same as the animal and you just said you're saying as a conclusion that it doesn't have value so does it have value or does it not so you cannot accept the premises and then reject the conclusion so yeah I think he knows that and I think that's why he went to the quantum physics nuclear explosion straw man.
. . .
I cornered him instantly the second that debate started he was fucked because his whole point coming in there is I am a moral Objectivist so there's two options there you're either talking about objectivism in the ontological sense so with respect to the nature of being believing that morality exists without humans there to perceive it either you're talking about in the ontological sense in which case I am NOT a moral Objectivist I'm a subjectivist just as I said so if that's the case you're wrong or you're talking about it in the epistemological sense meaning that once you define morality you can talk systematically mathematically about what is or is not moral and that's position I've always held and is not what I'm talking about so that would be the equivalent of showing up on a sargon video and being like oh technically you're effeminate um it's like yeah no shit yeah he's a feminist when he's criticizing feminism he's not talking about the dictionary definition he's talking about the current manifestations so Philo it's either you're wrong or you're making an irrelevant point which is it so he was cornered instantly and the whole conversation was him just avoiding that just trying to trying to derail and most people seem to detect it.
. . .
the only other youtuber who I've seen who's stupid enough to buy into that bullshit is Maude vegan who I challenged to a debate and she won't defend her position so total total failure right there . . . someone sent me a screenshot of her just completely failing on philosophical vegan forum just saying that my argument doesn't pass the rock test and for anyone who doesn't know the rock test is this incredibly retarded concept that fillo came up with where he he thinks that somehow named the trait can it ends in the conclusion that rocks have moral value and so I you know it's just he posted this demented comment and so I sent her a private message just explaining why she was wrong and asking you know if she is gonna defend her view and I tried talking we went back and forth maybe about 20 comments or so I debunked every single thing she said she is not really good at staying on point

_________
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Schwitzgebel's "no relevant difference" like NTT (but valid?)

Post by NonZeroSum »

New video incoming, really pushing the idea that we're straw-manning him with the debunk of his appeal to the identity of indiscernibles, whilst literally having a picture of a giant straw-man on the screen, smh aha.

Image
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Schwitzgebel's "no relevant difference" like NTT (but valid?)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 am New video incoming, really pushing the idea that we're straw-manning him with the debunk of his appeal to the identity of indiscernibles, whilst literally having a picture of a giant straw-man on the screen, smh aha.
Wow, I haven't even gotten around to responding to the above yet (sorry I've been slow).
Is Vegan Gains joining in on this one too? :lol: Isaac bringing in his pupil for some star power in attempt to humiliate us far and wide.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Ask Yourself responding to forum posts

Post by NonZeroSum »

The prequel to this response:
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:47 pm We also need to answer his ridiculous metaphysical claim.

Ignoring quantum physics for the time being (which is another can of worms with respect to entanglement, and his suggestion may even violate relativity), in physics if you take two otherwise identical things which exist in different locations, and you force their locations locations to be equal too, it is true that they are indiscernible as separate things, but it also becomes something else altogether (probably an explosion).

At no point do you have a living cow which is indiscernible from your copy. You either have two otherwise identical things discernible by location (and thus at least history, one having been a human in the past and we have the ability to track that due to the different location), or you have a very dead double-cow-amalgamation that is effectively a detonated thermonuclear bomb.

I know that may look like splitting hairs, but it's very relevant to his metaphysical claims if he or his audience have any respect for actual physics.

There is no way in physics to make two distinct things truly indiscernible (even if just by just their positions) from each other without combining them in a way that fundamentally changes their natures... at least not for fermions that aren't in an exotic state.
I don't think you could even do that with a boson like light (where you'd have constructive interference of some kind), not that there's any reason to believe that there's bosonic sentience out there.
Ask Yourself wrote:If you value humans, and there is NO TRAIT, then you can switch ALL TRAITS, and the thing shouldn't be valueless.
Yet you decalre it is.
That is as fucking dead clear a contradiction as humanly possible.
IF there are no traits, then you can switch them all without rendering the thing valueless, but swtiching them all would MAKE IT A FUCKING ANIMAL...
Which you are now saying is valueless.
. . .
I'm not actually talking about taking 2 physical objects and cramming them into the same space molecule per molecule.
I'm talkig about hypothetical objects and the point at which you are referring to the same thing.
A particularly comical strawman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i64UmDMlNBk
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
Post Reply