Evidenced-based discussion is only tangentially related to philosophy. There's no point in sharing my thoughts if the crux of your counterpoint essentially boils down to "prove it or go home"

In the meantime, if I can present three separate, historical philosophical ideas to you and you can shoot them all down with one phrase demanding proof and a supposition that everyone else is just mistaken, you may want to reexamine your idea of an open mind.

You have engaged a philosophical topic with evidence-based expectations. I recognize the futility of continuing this conversation, and so I won't. Making a point and being countered with "maybe you're just wrong" is literally a waste of my time.

I did more than enough to clarify the original person's point. I don't owe you a scientific explanation for that which you refuse to consider.

Later.

[–] nifty 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know what you think is happening here, sorry I am confused.

Anyway don’t worry about it! When I say proof, I mean something like this: https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/concise-introduction-to-logic/chapter/4-proofs/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof. You can't examine a theory like the ship of theseus with any of those methods and come out with a conclusive answer. If you could, it wouldn't be a philosophical topic.

You don't understand that, and I'm not going to attempt the impossible to prove it to you. That's why this conversation is meaningless and I don't really wish to continue it.

Have a good night

[–] nifty 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Okey doke, do as you wish! FYI, though I wasn’t asking for a “proof of the Ship of Theseus”, more about how one derives that you’re not the same conscious entity before and after going to sleep. I think I’ll go do some reading, I am sure someone’s said something somewhere about this.

Realistically, I am just going to look at more meemees and go to sleep.

Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof.

Edit: I disagree with this again based on previously stated reasons. Philosophy has never been without reason or logic :)