No, you didn't. You provided an abstract example to explain what you thought could conceivably be a problem with my argument.
Yes, the abstract example being the alternative formulation, that could be worded in exactly the same manner that you initially offered up.
You never actually exhibited any evidence that there was an actual problem with my argument.
Other than showing how your argument, as worded, can be both valid and invalid, due to the ambiguity of premise 2, you mean?
You didn't provide an alternative formulation.
The abstract argument IS the alternative formulation.
One form is valid, and you agreed that the form that I offered up was not.
Two formulations.
Only an abstract argument that has nothing to do with my own argument.
It has everything to do with your argument as it highlights the ambiguity in your premise 2.
Second, if you had argued anything from an alternative formulation, your point would have applied only to this alternative argument, not to mine, and it would therefore be a derail.
Yet since it highlights an ambiguity in
your argument (since the same wording can result in both a valid an invalid argument) it is very much relevant.
This doesn't make sense. "Two formulations worded exactly the same", that doesn't exist. If they are worded the same, it's the same formulation.
I summarised your initial argument - which you accepted as being a good summary.
I then showed how the wording you used could result in an invalid form.
If one can take the same wording to arrive at an invalid form as well as a valid one, I see that as a concern.
Do you not?
Second, if you think it's possible to interpret the argument so that it would become invalid, it's up to you to explain how it would go. I can't second-guess what you may have in mind.
I did.
I explained quite clearly in fact how the wording can be seen as ambiguous.
What you then do with that information is entirely up to you.
If you see a problem, you haven't said where it is. For the moment, you're the only one to see it.
I have clearly explained where it is.
No, you haven't. You haven't even addressed the wording I used.
You mean other than where I say that in the "abstract argument" I presented, using the exact same form as yours, the same wording that you used could be used for both B1 and B2.
This thus introduces ambiguity.
Yes, your argument is invalid. Not mine.
Yet my example argument can be written with the exact same wording you used in your initial formulation.
If you don't see that as a concern then okay.
I can only lead a horse to water.
No. I didn't used different wordings in the two premises. Both have the same wording, i.e. "the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain".
Yes, and as I have explained, that exact wording can be used in the argument I offered up, which you agreed was invalid.
Both B1 and B2 could be written as "the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain."
So you end up with the same wording yet, as you have agreed, an invalid form.
The example you used to explain yourself is not any alternative formulation to my argument. It's a completely different type of argument.
It would certainly seem to be a different type of argument than you intended.
Yet, quite clearly, your wording can also be used to describe an invalid form.
Your own argument doesn't use the same formulation at all. Your premises have the terms B1 and B2 which are different. My premises don't have different formulations. Both have the same wording, i.e. "the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain".
And, as I have now repeated many times, both B1 and B2 can be written as "
the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain".
Thus you end up with two formulations (yours and mine) that would be worded exactly the same way, but one would be valid and the other not.
Again, if you see no problem with this...
No, I don't. In fact, I'm definitive that there's no concern except in your imagination.
If you see no concern that the language you used is ambiguous then okay, you don't see it.
Stare at the trough and don't drink if you don't want to.
You asked for comments on your OP, and I have offered what I see as a concern, and despite your clarifications and lack of justification for your view, I still see as a concern.
You have identified a problem there is with your own example argument. You haven't explain how my own argument would suffer from the same problem.
Because both your argument and the one I offered can be worded exactly the same way.
This bit is incoherent. It just doesn't make any sense.
Apologies, I missed out the word "not" - as in "you could opt for a word that does not (unintentionally)..." etc.
No and the premise doesn't say that it is. So your claim here that my premise is false remains unsupported.
So when you wrote: "What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;" you didn't mean that the action (what somebody does) is determined by the state of a group of neurons?
Because that is what is false: it is simply not true that the action is determined by the state of a group of neurons.
If it was then the same state of those neurons would always result in the same action.
This, per the current understanding of the way the universe works, is not true.
Please also note that your assumption that an action is not necessarily determined by the state of a group of neurons does not entail that if is false that the action may be determined by the state of a group of neurons. That A is not necessarily true doesn't entail that it is false that A may be true.
You didn't say that it "may be determined" though.
You said "is determined".
This is false, as already explained.
That's a good point but it is irrelevant.
I accept there may be the same state at different times with different actions. Yet, this doesn't entail that the state of the group of neurons concerned doesn't determined the action.
If the same state results in different actions, the state of those neurons
by definition do not determine the action.
The difference in action would be the result of something other than the state of those neurons.
So, even if it is possible to have the same state with different actions at different times, it is still true that what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, at least according to all the scientific evidence that is available.
If the same state results in different actions then the state does not determine the action.
Period.
You can't accept the possibility that they don't and then claim that they do.
If you disagree that it's what the scientific evidence says, please explain.
It is for you to provide the evidence that it
is the case.
You are, after all, the one making the claim that the premises are sound.
No, you haven't supported any of your claims, as I explained in detail here.
You haven't explained in detail.
You have simply asserted, incorrectly, that I have not supported anything.
I have provided ample explanation such that you should be able to comprehend the issue.
Also, most of your post is incoherent or contrary to the facts of what has already been said, by you or by me. If you don't shape up, I will have to ignore you.
More incorrect assertion on your part, one omission of "not" on my part aside.
But if you want to ignore me, that's fine; it won't alter the issues with the argument in your OP.
I hope this is civil enough as a response.
Barely.
But I have replied.