Where the Necessity Case for Matthew Segall & Whitehead’s Prehension Fails
Matthew David Segall’s challenge meets positive causal accounts at specified targets. The further claim that all actuality is prehensive still needs its own warrant.
Logic Does Not Choose Relevance. Does Feeling? Not Alone. My Response to Matthew David Segall’s “Whitehead’s Adventure in Rationality”
Phenomenal powers, prehension, and a transport test for Whitehead’s universal wager
What Warrants the Scope Jump?
A reply to Matthew David Segall on continuity, comparative warrant, and universal prehension.
Why Matthew David Segall Kept Answering Me Without Answering My Actual Argument
How a protective interpretive frame can turn compatibility into apparent confirmation, and why the bridge from shared causal reality to universal prehensive feeling still needs its own warrant.
Matthew Segall’s Words Made Flesh Again, but the Evidence Never Said That?
How good science gets made to lend its prestige, without its consent, to a specific metaphysical conclusion it never established and doesn’t support uniquely.
Matthew Segall Granted My Request for Erratum. The Straw Man Came Back Wearing a Presupposition.
A reductio of the post-erratum rebuttal: I subtract no evidenced experience. My D+?X retains the process-relational and experiential commitments the evidence already supports.
Can Anti-Theism Survive Its Own Outsider Test?
My Public Debate with Aron Ra about Naturalistic Explanation and the God Claims Biblical Debunking Leaves Open
Responding to Matthew Segall’s “Audit”: An Audit of the Audit of the Audits (LOL, ok, maybe this is getting a bit off the rails now🤣)
What I Said Matt Said, What Matt Says I Said Matt Said, What the Sources Say We Actually Said, and Whatever Survived the Context Shredder
Process Philosopher Matt Segall Admitted Misrepresenting My Argument To His Readers. He Updated His Page, Not His Readers
Why his revised argument still burdens my agnosticism with a position he admitted I did not hold, while the page remains partly repaired and his readers remain uncorrected.
I Asked The Process Philosopher Matt Segall to Correct the Public Record. He Started Another Debate With Me Instead. The Public Record Remains Uncorrected.
He acknowledged the misattribution, but the original article remains uncorrected, the dependent critique unrevised, and the questions I actually asked still unanswered.
Process Philosopher Matthew Segall Admitted He Attributed a Position to Me That I Did Not Hold. Why Is the Argument Still Standing?
Matt admits he collapsed my conditional argument and agnosticism into a position I never held. What remains of the critique built against it?
Matthew Segall’s ‘Experience Is Not a Predicate’: I Never Made the Argument He Rebutted. My Question Remains Unanswered.
The live disagreement is much narrower: whether causal actuality itself warrants a universal experiential or affective characterization, or whether primitive intrinsic character should remain open until something discriminates that interpretation from its strongest process-relational rivals.
