You seem to want to construct a sentence in which you affirm that it is not certain, as if the Conscious Observer making such statements can sum to mere fiction. That leaves you at the same time with an affirmation which violates your own certainty/non-fiction, namely "you" viz. reason itself. See https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5104944794

You're avoiding the point. See https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5104944794

I prefer not to multiply the branches in a discussion. I already have two parallel comments. It is not efficient either to address too many things at once. Let's resume in the two other places, ideally merged in one for now.

Yes you understand it. You said Mailbox will not convey the same meaning as i-am when choosing your terms to fill in your own self-report of your own experiential first person "data". Words carry something called intended meaning. You choose not to use Mailbox. Eventually that will narrow and you'll have to choose again. And again. Until you choose to trade-away or else retain a coherent self-report.

This is really very basic stuff and you've been led right up to that "Y" a few hundred times and each time you pull back and find some reason to avoid an actual word-choice regarding the first person experience ((experienced half vs. the ontological half)).

I mean, I'm sorry but, well, it's really just "Basic Philosophy of Mind Whatchamacallits" such as, say, Sorta-Kinda like https://strangenotions.com/why-reason-demands-absolute-certitudes/#comment-5041832349

Which, again, we pick up over at https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5052374914

As usual you are pulling back [...]

I rather see a clarification.

[...] equivocating with respect to intentionality and first person data, and avoiding a choice between retention of the property you are reporting and trading it away [...]

I don’t understand that.

[...] which we can pick up over at https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5052374914

I replied there.

As usual you are pulling back, equivocating with respect to intentionality and first person data, and avoiding a choice between retention of the property you are reporting and trading it away ~ which we can pick up over at https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5052374914

The proper solution is to acknowledge that the PNC does not apply at all “in the vicinity of” vague boundaries.

While I'm sure you will pull back from that in your reply, at the moment it seems that you have made a conclusion.

Yes, it is hard to always be precise enough and you will certainly consider this as a “pull back” though I would rather consider it as a clarification. It is quite easy to generate paradoxes or absurdities by applying the PNC in the vicinity of or even through a vagueness boundary, as for instance in the case of the Sorites paradox. Considering that it has not been established that it is valid to apply the PNC in such conditions, it is my intuition (and that of many other people) that it is reasonable to refrain from using it (in such conditions).

[...] we still have to "push past" several "Y's" in the road with respect to key decision points amid vagueness.

Or it is just the other way: the vagueness issue has to be settled before any other decision can be made at all.

Regretfully, for some reason, these back links on Disqus for me frequently just go to "this site cannot be reached."
This is one of them! So, I have no idea what is at issue here.

Dr. Bonnette,
Following GQ's reply is https://strangenotions.com/why-reason-demands-absolute-certitudes/#comment-5052735887

GQ & Dr. Bonette,

GQ you make quite a claim here, at least for now:

The proper solution is to acknowledge that the PNC does not apply at all “in the vicinity of” vague boundaries.

While I'm sure you will pull back from that in your reply, at the moment it seems that you have made a conclusion. Are you epistemologically justified to make the claim that X Does Not Apply To Y? You've assured me that you cannot make any such claim at all with (epistemic) justification when it comes to interpreting reality's concrete furniture, whatever such may be.

Vagueness is a funny thing especially when it isn't necessary. But then we still have to "push past" several "Y's" in the road with respect to key decision points amid vagueness.

We must not conflate [A] Negative Theology or terms like that which speak of truths over the horizon that we cannot see for [B] Contradictions and Absurdity. They are different categories all together such that, again "A" is not "B" and so on there. Equating Mailbox to Self is not a problem of something being out of our range of sight. It is a problem of Truth-Telling and dishonesty as per Contradiction and Absurdity given the fact that one cannot "see" "non-being" and so therefore the claim to "see" the "in principle possibility" of "round squares" just is to claim to "see" non-being. When it comes to "that" "sight", well, there comes a point when you can not claim to be doing anything more than, well, lying ~ as per the following: https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5052374914