Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
>>>> addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
>>>> You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
>>>> an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
>>>> because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
>>>> utter and complete fraud.
>>> You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
>>> unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
>>> author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
>>> making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
>>> criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.
>> And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
>> own competence.
>>
>>> That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
>>> I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
>>> you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
>>> anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
>>> that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
>>> I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
>>> forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
>>> them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
>>> You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
>>> up like Ball.
>> I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
>> rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
>> discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
>> up on you.
>
> Well, that would be great.
>

He replied as follows below.. no doubt you will find it to be
inadequate, I do not.

Dear Dutch,

Thank you for contacting me. It is quite some time since I have worked on
those questions now, and I don't think that I will take part in the
discussion. But I believe that the distinction between capability and
ability is good enough, even if there might be cases of doubt in the
overlapping sones. I would be very grateful if you would argue the case.
It seems clear enough that normally a human child has certain capablities
that most other animals lack, such as the ability of using language to
state a proposition or make a decision and argue for it, and to follow it
up in action. Those who are brain damaged or in perpetual coma may or may
not have this capability. I don't argue that we know they do have it, but
that it seems reasonable to give them the benefit of doubt. But I am sure
you can do this better than me. Anyway, good luck!

Jon