tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post2907766539887174571..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Attempted murderAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-27195982041648632082008-07-21T11:30:00.000-05:002008-07-21T11:30:00.000-05:00That you can rationally attempt to kill someone on...That you can rationally attempt to kill someone only insofar as you doubt that they are dead can be refuted without having to think of time-travel as possible. E.g. if you are about to execute someone by electrocution, but you find them suicided, but you believe that electricity can reanimate the brain before frying it. Or something like that involving chemicals injected into the brain; and so forth.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61351904615252191802008-07-21T10:02:00.000-05:002008-07-21T10:02:00.000-05:00Hmm... Is it that you know that X is dead, but you...Hmm... Is it that you know that X is dead, but you also know that you might be wrong? Then you might attempt something that would, were you wrong, kill them. So you can attempt to kill someone whom you know to be dead. And (1) cannot be saved because there will always be some doubt about such an empirical fact as another being dead or alive. I think there is also an equivocation on "cannot" since one can attempt to stand up when one knows one is already standing up, just by being irrational (or just by not putting 1 and 1 together).Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-17568236343835966302008-07-19T07:26:00.000-05:002008-07-19T07:26:00.000-05:00There's a problem here, Dr. Pruss. I think (1) is ...There's a problem here, Dr. Pruss. I think (1) is obviously false. The problem is deep and epistemological. What are you meaning when YOU use the term "know." I don't care how Jon Kvanvig or Al Plantinga use it, at least not for our conversation. I think the whole discussion about "knowledge" is pointless or a red herring. I can go into more detail, but I just don't have the time right now. Something like more important stuff to do. I think your thought experiment, though I read it late last time, is, in fact, metaphysically impossible, though, of course, you can "play" the thought in your head. I don't know, let's ask some psychics profeesor, and see what he thinks. I don't know any and have a problem with the local university right now, so I'm not available for that sort of thing. I haven't taken a math course for about 5 years, so my math skills are just poor. <BR/><BR/>To put it another way, I wouldn't trust anyone who told me this was a "possibility." Why would I care?<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Dr. Pruss, <BR/><BR/>LanceLawrence G Miley IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06462405363001391818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86042400459170134842008-07-19T04:27:00.000-05:002008-07-19T04:27:00.000-05:00I'm glad you didn't resist posting that, as I love...I'm glad you didn't resist posting that, as I loved it.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com