I dont understand continuing, peter is a troll. He is not after some granual understanding of the topic like me and you creative, his purpose is to inflame, to cause conflict, and to create drama. Instead of being malleable with the other participants, he is rigid, instead of seeking the path of least resistance he seeks the path of greatest resistance.

I am not interested in feeding the troll, I dont understand why you are.

Well, we're all rigid to some extent, but I know what you mean and agree. It all comes out in the wash, bushido. That style of argument is ground for banning on other philosophy sites. This one seems to tolerate it.

Creative is relentless. And he certainly has a lot of patience. I have learned a lot from Creative.

"Are you alone or am I here too?"



Meaning must be taken on a whole and in context, a lesson that was hard for myself to learn. We all talk about the same stuff.

Thanks Jb, and I you. I do not always feel patient. The relentlessness has gotten me in trouble as well as made some things all the sweeter once obtained. I mean, if being relentless is a kind of uninhibited determination.

So, bushido, Jb, or anyone else for that matter...

We all think that we know when another is lying. It has been argued that honest testimony cannot include lying and that being honest does not require knowing how to lie, at least during early childhood. However, what has not been thoroughly discussed is how our notion of what a lie is will affect our judgment concerning them. Some folk hold that a lie must be false, while others hold that a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of what one believes to be the case. Are there any others, and if so how do they affect our judgment?

So, Jill comes in and asks Joe if he is alone. Joe answers "No, Mary is here too." Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. So his testimony is true, but he doesn't believe it.


If we define a lie as telling a falsehood, then Joe is not lying. That doesn't seem right.

If we define a lie as misrepresenting one's own belief, then Joe has told a true lie.


It seems paradoxical either way. What's missing here that could eliminate the paradox?

You're not paying attention. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. It's your judgement of lying that is contentious. Are you claiming to know my thoughts now?

You assume that you know Joe's understanding of the question. You assume to know Jill's intended meaning behind the question (which is understandable as you formed it).

You would take an honest answer and call it a lie because it doesn't agree with your expected answer of your unspecified meaning? If you can't allow for both to be true, then you have to defend only one as being correct which you have. You picked the wrong one...

Problems seem to arise when you do not like what someone else assumes or doesn't assume and/or gives an answer that you don't agree with. Sometimes you just disagree with the thought process regardless of the conclusion.

"you cannot add data"? "you must assume data not present"? Which one is it?

You wanna break this down into being certain?





Which nonsense? Your line of reasoning for being able to accept "no, of course not" as an honest answer?

Think really hard on that, it's so simple a very small child can get it.

I understand the mistake. Personally I know what I meant, and I know I tried to explain it. I also know that if me and creative where in a room having a verbal conversation he would understand my meaning.

I also know its just not worth it to me to engage here with peter ruining interesting threads. If I was a mod, Id have banned him permanently. I have reported a few of his posts and they have been edited, or deleted, but I do not think anyone is interested in banning him.

That to me means I just cant continue to engage here honestly. It takes up what free time I have to take the time to explain my position and I can get enjoyment from other, better moderated, forums.

Maybe if we had more people who enjoyed the philosophy aspects that are discussed in this forum, who also reported this kind of behavior, we would get some action to curb the abuse.

The day you guys meet an honest person is the day you may understand how an honest person thinks...

I think you're lying.

Just look at what you've written. Your entire argument stands or falls upon the meaning of the question. The only way your answer makes any sense is if we change the very well known meaning of an uncontentious question. If you think that that charge is ill-founded and you wish to show me, and/or the reader that you're not trying to make the question a contentious matter, then just answer the question that I've been asking.

Do you or do you not believe that the question "Are you alone?" means "Are you alone or am I here too?"

I'll say thank you for the recognition of your mistake.

To the rest, it's just a bunch of personal drivel that violates the rules of this forum.

You wanna know why there aren't more people in this forum? Maybe it's the way they get treated here.

I get it, you hate being wrong... Learn to deal with it.

I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.

This isn't about me or you. It's about Joe, period.
You expect people to assume things. I do not.
I am capable of infering meanings, an "innocent" person is not.

Some people do simply "read 'em as they see 'em".

So, which is it? State it clearly so we can move forward. Does "Are you alone?" mean...

1. Are you alone or are there other folk who are present but unseen.
2. Are you alone or am I here too

"Jill notwithstanding" is the assumed aspect in the given context as originally stated. Your example #2 above is nonsense and #1 adds greater detail.

To move forward, you must fix the past first.

The mistake was understanding what I meant when I said knowledge must not change.

It would take far too long to explain what I meant by knowledge by typing, when every other post is YOU peter calling people liars, and derailing the thread.

This was a fun thread until you decided it was more important to attack me, than engage in the topic.

You stated two conflicting opinions while calling me a troll.
I simply pointed them out to you.
I used your citeria to assess if you were lying.
I judged according the context and situation.

What more needs to be said?

Jill's presence does not matter. That is a given if the meaning of the question is captured by #1. I find it rather odd that that need be explained. If example #2 is nonsense, then so is claiming that "No, of course not." is an honest answer to the question. For the only way that that serves to be an honest answer to the question is if we suppose the nonsensical meaning set out by #2.

If you do not believe that the question means 2, then why make an argument based upon that meaning?

I'm not. I'm basing an argument on the possibility that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated.


That is why I told you to think hard on that statement. Because if you look at it without any assumptions, no was an honest answer.


In other words, "Are you alone?" means "Are you alone?"....

This doesn't get you off the hook. A=A is utterly meaningless. Are you alone = are you alone is equally meaningless. You're waffling here.

"No" cannot be an honest answer if the meaning of the question is 1. You agreed that the meaning of the question is 1. It only follows that "No." is not an honest answer to the question, because everyone knows what it means. Changing the meaning of an uncontentious question in order to make a nonsensical and pointless argument is not good sign.