[Phaedrus]

Do you suppose you are winning this "debate" with betty boop? You're not. You're attacking her and mistaking graciousness for lack of depth in the process. You accuse her of being an agglomeration of filters, yet that is precisely what I see in your posts. And those filters are not always consistent, one with the other.

Take, for example, "naturalism". To the Materialists, natural means physical and physical includes matter and energy, only. To you, natural includes intangibles such as will. This is semantics, not substance. Words are not the thing, they are a mental construct and not "natural". If they, words and will, are defined as natural, as you hve done, if natural includes "all of the above", we lose the ability to discern, the very basis for all analysis and discussion. Here's your comment:

You simply cannot take a phenomenon like 'will' and define it as something other than 'natural' without defining away your ability to discern it, ([I] get so tired of saying this) BY DEFINITION ...

Well, wrong. This is wordplay only. And you are ranting. What, LW, is your problem?

[cornelis]

Do you suppose you are winning this "debate" with betty boop? You're not. You're attacking her and mistaking graciousness for lack of depth in the process. You accuse her of being an agglomeration of filters, yet that is precisely what I see in your posts. And those filters are not always consistent, one with the other.

Righteo!