____________________________________________________
sfarrar33 wrote: new statement:
I, that is the real
living person behind the bf2s account of the name '
sfarrar33',
will not think up a
claim that
you cannot prove wrong. ...
I will also not think this claim up
within the next week and
I will not post it here in this thread. (sorry i couldn't think of a way to combine those two sentances and make them easily understandable hence the seperation).
____________________________________________________
sfarrar33 wrote:
topal63 wrote:
OK, back to one of my original requests...
Please submit medical proof of brain-death for the week in question, to confirm your statement is true (and not proved wrong); and that in fact you did not think during your self-specified time period.
Either you were brain-dead the week in question or you are a liar. Which is it? Did you actually have no thoughts during that week (and this encompasses the use language; as its use, for humans, is in general equality to making statements in-mind); or are you just lying about it - not thinking for a week that is.
You still don't realize that it does not matter if you posted a statement (made a claim here; and posted it) or not. What is germane is the essence of the original statement. It only matters that you did not think at all, that you did not use language at all, during the week in question. It would have been a more reasonable claim if you said: I will not think of a claim in the next 1 second and not post it here for within the next week. This is a probable - reasonable. Not thinking (using language; constructing statements in-mind) for a whole week; is really only possible if your brain ceased normal biological functioning.
Satisfying one condition of your original statement (not posting for a week) does not validate the other condition (that you will not think of a statement/claim within the one-week period). If either condition is false - the entire statement becomes false. Any multi-conditional claim (your original statement) can only be true - if and only if - all conditions of the entire-statement are true.
You have stated a possibility that requires brain-death to make your claim reasonable and probable. Yet, you and I (and everyone else) know you did not suffer brain-death as evidenced by your continued posting in this thread. And, you and I know you've been avoiding the liar issue (lying about not thinking). Either way your claim has been proved wrong.
At this point the burden of proof has shifted to you. Your claim is clearly false. Either you were brain-dead, or you are lying. Admitting you're lying about not thinking for a week is, well, evidence confirming the falseness of your original claim. Only independently confirmed documented medical proof of brain-death can make your claim a true one. Until then I consider this closed.
You continue to say that i would need to be medically brain dead to not think up a claim that would prove you wrong, and whilst i am flattered that you think i am that intelligent, it is not the case i could have been thinking of an almost infinate number of other things completely un-claim related, or i could have been trying to think up claims and simply not have come up with one i felt would win, therefore medical proof of brain death is not required to prove my statement correct, and as no accurate techniques of monitoring thought proccess' exist it would be impossible for me to prove exactly what I was thinking so you cannot request that either.
Wrong again (you are now thrice-wrong). I don’t need to know your exact thoughts. You thinking of a false statement or you thinking of a true statement (belief of being error-free, or labeled as the “claim”) - is not relevant.
I continue to point out your original statement has been falsified in many ways; this just being one of them.
1.) Thinking can involve contemplation of sense perception(s), but more aptly thinking is not associated with sensory perception per se; it is more closely associated with contemplation(s) of; or in; symbolic form. Math is symbolic reasoning (a language itself; in a very real sense), and human languages are symbolic representations; made of/from symbols (and words = symbolic representations of ideas, concepts, labels for things or specific images, etc).
2.) You have claimed you would not think of a claim. This is simply not true. You continue to miss the exact point of contention. I am not equivocating here. I am being specific as to where you have made your mistake in reasoning. You have stated you would not think for a week; of a so-called “claim.” And, a claim is going to be either a single statement or a serious of statements. Statements are logical/grammatical constructs of human language; symbolic representations of: ideas, concepts, labels for things or specific images, etc. To suggest you have not used language (thought in normal everyday symbolic form) for a week - is an absurd claim. It is utterly false. Therefore for that to be true you had to be either brain-dead or dead. Or, you are simply lying about not thinking (have statements of language occurring "in your mind").
3.) It does not matter if you considered some of the statements that have crossed your mind as being worthy of being posted; and then called it your "claim." The fact is you have thought of statements; claims (used language; or even math as a language) during that one-week period and any one of them could be called; self-labeled; your “claim.”
4.) Suppose you thought of a statement you considered worthy of posting and calling it your “claim” . . . “that cannot be proven wrong.” And then you posted it (during the week in question) and we proved it wrong; you thinking that it was a correct statement free of logical error - is not relevant. And, suppose you actually have thought of a statement that cannot be proven wrong; guess what that is not relevant either. It simply does not matter (as belief is at play here - as well).
Your statement is false if any portion of the statement (or serious of statements) is false. For your statement to be true - all of the conditions must be true. If any single portion/condition is false - you are wrong.
Your conditions as specified by your statement:a.) Must be a living person.
b.) Must be the person representing themselves, behind the BF2S account name:
sfarrar33.
c.) This living person will not think of a statement.
d.) This statement should be believed by, that self-same person, as being free of error (one you “cannot prove wrong”).
e.) The living person, who posts here on BF2S called
sfarrar33 will not think of a (this believed to be “error free”) statement within a one week period.
f.) This statement will be called the “claim.”
g.) This self-same person will not post “it,” within this thread.
a.) Probably true. I am not going to assume your dead or posting from the grave (beyond).
b.) Probably true. I am not going to assume another person is using your account.
c.) False. It doesn’t matter of you “believe” you have thought of an error free statement or not. It doesn’t matter whether it was a falsifiable claim/statement or not. It doesn’t matter of you self-labeled it the “claim.” It only matters if you made a mental construct “in your mind” that can be called “a statement.” The subsequent mentality activity of calling it your claim is a separate condition.
d.) Many people “believe” many things that simply are false. You knowing or not-knowing, believing or not-believing you were in possession of an error-free statement - is not relevant. As an example: you could have “believed” you had an “error-free” statement, which in fact was loaded with errors, and then called it your “claim” and then you did
not post it. It doesn’t matter if you: believed it was error free, believed it was error-ridden, called it your claim, did not call it your claim. You had to abstain from making any symbolic statements (math or English, or another language) “in your mind” for a whole week.
e.) One week self-imposed condition on thinking of a statement and subsequently labeling it your “claim,” assumed to be true. Not disputing your self-imposed restrictions. I am disputing that you could satisfy them (or prove; demonstrate; that you did satisfy them).
f.) Not provable in any way by you or me. You cannot demonstrate that you
did not label a statement (that crossed your mind during the one-week period) a; or the; claim. And, conversely you cannot demonstrate that you
did. Not posting is not proof of you labeling or not labeling a logical/grammatical statement your “claim.” That can be done (or not done) entirely in mind.
g.) This is an open ended condition. Actually considering you have
not placed a time restriction on when you can post a statement, self-labeled the claim; you have now until the end of time to satisfy this condition of your original statement. So, whether or not you post a statement, anytime between now and the end of time, is not relevant. As you cannot satisfy the other conditions of your original statement (c, d and f).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-06 08:58:55)
