@SamHarrisOrg You're right: it's question begging or circular reasoning. x -> A, A -> y therefore y -> x. Still two words, though.
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@Ameriman1984@craig_mcfarlane You'd do better logically speaking if you embrace the biconditional "values iff consciousness". -
@antheologian@Ameriman1984@craig_mcfarlane The effort to reduce my argument to a syllogism leaves out important details. -
@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian@Ameriman1984 It's unavoidable, isn't it?, if you police your critics's discourse and limit them to 1000 words? -
@craig_mcfarlane@antheologian@Ameriman1984 1000 words should suffice to get the conversation started. Then we'll see where it goes. -
@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian@Ameriman1984 Point is, if you can't reduce your argument to a coherent soundbite what chance have your critics? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian@craig_mcfarlane Or, you accidentally replied to me when you were trying to reply to@antheologian - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@antheologian@craig_mcfarlane I was agreeing with you. Perhaps I worded it poorly. I was trying to say what you just said.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.