Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Commentary on Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son

I made this forum topic so I, and other people, can comment on the debate called Cpt_pineapple and Fortunate Son.  The debate is on TAG.  The argument being debated is listed below. 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay, since I am not being allowed a topic in the debate forum, I will post my argument here and I am simply going to ignore everyone who responds except for Cpt_pineapple.  

Please keep posts under 500 words.

 

TERMS DEFINED:

God = Intelligent being who must exist by metaphysical necessity.  From his metaphysical necessity, he must also be (a) eternal, (b) the sufficient reason for his own existence, (c) theoretically unable to improve upon. 

 

Laws of logic - principles which govern the content of our discourse and dictate proper thinking; the most obvious is the law of non-contradiction (A v ~A).

 

Possible worlds = states that the world could have been in given certain circumstances.

 

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to forego expanding the argument using the rules of propositional logic such as conjunction, modus ponens, etc. 

 

(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.                                            

 

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind

 

THEREFORE, an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

 

(1) is justified because given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change.  This becomes obvious when you realize someone must use the laws of logic in order to deny that they apply. 


(2) is justified because the application of the laws of logic is a mental application.  They cannot be located in the physical world.  They only exist if someone thinks them.


The conclusion necessarily follows.  If the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds and they require a mind in order to exist, then a mind must exist in all possible worlds.

 

In order to refute this argument, you must show the following:

(A) That there are circumstances where the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, do not have application.  For example, you will have to explain how it is possible for a cat to be both a cat and not a cat at the same time.

OR

(B) That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind. For example, you will have to explain WHAT the laws of logic are, such that they are able to exist without a mind.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Edit:Thought

Eloise wrote:
Edit:

Thought I'd look up the wikipedia definition for the heck of it and guess what it says?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud

"A cloud is a visible mass of droplets, in other words, little drops of water"

 

.....without a half bottle of tequila in me I might have kept this much of an ipwnthee brag to myself but... LOL.

I wish RRS had a "Like" button.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Sterculius
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Sterculius

Thomathy wrote:

Sterculius wrote:
I agree on this.   I further think it's an error that all possible worlds require the laws of logic.  In addition to what you said,  I wonder: If there are an infinite number of possible worlds why are the laws of logic required.  Otherwise we're talking about a less than infinite number of possibilities.  
You seem to be mistaking 'possible words' in logical discourse for something that it doesn't mean.  Specifically, I think you're conflating possible words with the many-worlds (multiverse) interpretation of quantum mechanics.  Possible worlds has nothing to do with the existence of actual other universes or worlds in quantum theory.  It is a concept in philosophy that allows the consideration of hypothetical propositions to the end of determining truth, falsity, contingency, possibility, necessity and impossibility in whichever world is being considered, and ultimately in our world.

 

I get it.    I didn't know that possible worlds ruled out, by definition, illogical worlds.  I thought that possible propositions might include those possible worlds where logic did not exist but by the rules of the game it cannot.

However,  I don't have to be conflating the many-worlds theory to speak of literal other universes as modal realism suggests. 

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Thomathy

Sterculius wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Sterculius wrote:
I agree on this. I further think it's an error that all possible worlds require the laws of logic. In addition to what you said, I wonder: If there are an infinite number of possible worlds why are the laws of logic required. Otherwise we're talking about a less than infinite number of possibilities.
You seem to be mistaking '' in logical discourse for something that it doesn't mean. Specifically, I think you're conflating possible words with the many-worlds (multiverse) interpretation of quantum mechanics. Possible worlds has nothing to do with the existence of actual other universes or worlds in quantum theory. It is a concept in philosophy that allows the consideration of hypothetical propositions to the end of determining truth, falsity, contingency, possibility, necessity and impossibility in whichever world is being considered, and ultimately in our world.
However, I don't have to be conflating the many-worlds theory to speak of literal other universes as modal realism suggests.
Umm ...no, you don't. I just don't think modal realism is very useful ...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Umm ...no,

Thomathy wrote:

Umm ...no, you don't. I just don't think modal realism is very useful ...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

It seems perfect for setting up petitio principii arguments, though. At least, if this current debate is an example.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, nigel, it's really

Yeah, nigel, it's really good at that.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No, I am a

Eloise wrote:

No, I am a neutral monist, I do not believe consciousness resides in brains, guess again.

I'm not guessing.  I'm asking you.

Quote:
So what? You would use UI to prove UG as its consequence, anyway. I'm simply bypassing all that handwaving to tell you that a thing is what it is because that is the nature of things being things

So what?  I would expect you to actually pay attention to what I am saying.  If you are going to go after things I do not even mention, then I can only assume that you are not reading my posts very thoroughly.

Quote:
Yes, I am saying that the logic of UI, and of course, UG, is derived from that very process. The logic we engage in presently is a matured, refined version of it and its consistency derives from the basic nature of the labelling/cataloguing interaction itself.

HAHA!  Do you know how idiotic that is?  You are saying that we derive logic from a logical process that is similar to logic but not logic.  So what accounts for the logic from which we derive logic?  You cannot use logic to derive itself. 

Quote:
No it doesn't, not inherently, anyway. In discourse, maybe I'll grant you, but not in things.

Consistency in things is a logical judgment that we make!  You are once again begging the question and redefining the ontological nature of the laws of logic, per Wikipedia; "A consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction."

Quote:
Que? I said "naturally AS counting" not "from counting", you can relate Bayes Theorem directly from a table of frequencies, it can be directly observed as a consequence of sorting, just like counting

You are being incoherent now.

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Okay, now

Eloise wrote:

 

 

Okay, now you're really gonna hear some french. How dare you be so fucking dishonest as to pretend that this doesn't prove exactly what I said?

 

Clouds ARE WATER VAPOUR!! you gargantuan TOOL

W.H.A.T.T.H.E.F.U.C.K!

 We can wrangle about this until the cows come home, but academia is on my side.  Here you go:

"Some but not all arguments, then, are tautologies.  The argument form Modus Ponens, for example, is valid but is not a tautology."

www.newworldenylclopedia.org/entry/Tautology

 

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Fortunate_Son

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

  You do not observe the property of ~B in A

Actually you must, there is no avoiding it because ~B is the universe in which B exists and at no time have you ever observed B without ~B nor will you so the very notion of "not observing" ~B in A is ultimately absurd, it's all one universe, Fortunate_son.

~B doesn't exist at all!  Negatives do not exist!  That's like saying that Eloise's living body is an actuality and that necessitates that Eloise's dead body exists.

What philosophy is this?!

Quote:
"A" isn't a property it's a label, what A labels you most definitely do observe in A. This is the category error that others have been contending that you're making.

So why are you not telling Nigel he is wrong since he has explicitly stated that it is a property?  "A" is not a label.  I'm not even talking about names.  We could have no verbal or written language and still apply the law of identity.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You must have

Thomathy wrote:

You must have reading comprehension problems.

You said that he believes his argument is valid but he does not take it seriously as proof.  Any argument which is both valid AND sound would be proof, so why would he not take it seriously if they meet both of those requirements?  Or are you saying that it is valid and unsound, in which case, you have no business telling me that I have reading comprehension problems?

Quote:
So, I'm a plagiarist and a liar?

And possibly a homosexual. 

Quote:
It's irrelevant to the point that your argument is similar to it. 

The only thing it has in common with the argument is that it applies modal logic.   

Quote:
Your argument is dependant on a premise which not everyone will take for granted and which, unique to your argument (with regards to Plantinga's), happens to be completely incorrect, namely the premise that, 'The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind.'  They are not, not in the way in which you mean. 

Then you need to explain to me what the ontological nature of the laws are.  If your position is tenable, then we can reject the premise.  Everyone here so far has failed to give an adequate account of the ontological nature. 

Quote:
Logic clearly exists independent of the existence of a mind. 

No, that's not clear at all.  That's a contradiction, in fact.  Logic is a process of the mind.  It is making proper inferences.  Inference occurs in the MIND, this is true whether you believe the mind is immaterial or material. 

Quote:
Here your interlocutors are talking exclusively of a human mind and they've extended that to all biological creatures.  It's clear you take issue with this, because the mind you're referring to (which I'll take to be the intelligent being in your conclusion) is your god.

Nope.  I've made no reference to God in the second premise.  Sorry, try again.

Quote:
It's clear that that's what your talking about because not every possible world will have biological creatures at all or from it's inception (or indeed before it)

That's how God is INFERRED in the conclusion.

Quote:

(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon god;a mind;an intelligent being

THEREFORE, god;a mind;an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

Nope.  That's a distortion.

 

Quote:
Well, I take issue with your definition of god, for one. 

 

Sorry, you do not get to define that which I am attempting to prove.  Debates do not work that way. 

Quote:
This doesn't prove that definition at all.  Particularly, it doesn't prove that the being is sufficient for it's own existence nor that it's unable to be improved upon. 

Read the definition again, that is inferred from his metaphysical necessity. 

Quote:
If we look at premise 2 again, and ignore that your god is rejected right off the bat, then we have the problem that logic exists and works independently of mind and that it necessarily must.

Prove it.

Quote:
Premise 2 can be rejected on the basis of that belief.  Unlike Plantinga's argument, where the controversial premise has yet to be shown to be true (because there is no evidence for it), the statement you've made is patently false.  I think that's been covered quite well by others and you have yet to respond showing comprehension of that.

It has been responded to poorly by everyone here and even Nigel (who seems like a decent guy) admitted that he has never even taken a philosophy class.  I really think most people here have no business even discussing theological issues, anymore than I should be on a physics forum discussing relativity.

Quote:
So, while everyone else here continues to argue with you, as they might, I'm quite done.  Your argument is very, very bad.

You'll respond to this.  I can tell that you are weak minded.

Quote:
Yeah, right.

No, you are definitely a featherweight on these issues.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
We're dealing with a child.

We're dealing with a child.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:It has

Fortunate_Son wrote:
It has been responded to poorly by everyone here and even Nigel (who seems like a decent guy) admitted that he has never even taken a philosophy class.  I really think most people here have no business even discussing theological issues, anymore than I should be on a physics forum discussing relativity.

Nope. But I've been reading up a bit. I've read through Hume (whom I like a lot), read up a bit with Quine (who has interesting ideas, but bores me to tears), and even Plantinga (as variants of his ontological argument come up quite a bit, obviously). I have read Descartes and Dennett, Russell and Kuhn, Popper and Bacon. Just because I've never taken a philosophy class (which is not quite true -- I did take an aesthetics class, and an intro to philosophy) does not mean I am completely ignorant. In part, I engage those who are willing to discuss philosophy to help educate myself about it.

I find that I learn the most from those who are willing to admit when they are wrong, or even possibly wrong, and are willing to discuss their position honestly and without arrogance. I find I learn the least from those who never admit error, even in the trivial details. I find I learn nothing at all from those who think highly of themselves, and perhaps not so highly of those whom they engage. In those cases, I can only assume the person has nothing to teach, and is themselves unwilling to learn.

But more importantly, I do understand a bit about logic. Not so much as applied to analytic philosophy (on which I am slowly educating myself), but about applied logic, and its relation to, you know, reality.

And I can tell an argument that begs the question. I also recognize bare assertions (such as your #2).

I can also tell when a fool believes he is wise, as most fools do.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:It has

Fortunate_Son wrote:
It has been responded to poorly by everyone here and even Nigel (who seems like a decent guy) admitted that he has never even taken a philosophy class.  I really think most people here have no business even discussing theological issues, anymore than I should be on a physics forum discussing relativity.

Ok, since you don't know every word of  the Koran  rivers of milk and wine and 72 virgins it must be true. Since you dont know everything about Egyptian Hieroglyphics the sun really must be a thinking being.

I can't do a fraction right now to save my life, but I do KNOW that when I was in school, if I followed the steps correctly my answer would come out correctly. And we even have computers today that CAN and do those calculations for us.

People who drive cars might not know how to build the engine, but they don't let their brains fall out and think that the engine is magically run by pixies. You can see the sun but you don't let your brains fall out and think it is a thinking being.

I don't buy theological arguments because they come from an unscientific past and are there to defend myths, just as the Egyptians once defended the claim that the sun was a thinking being.

SCIENTIFIC method is the tool, the quality control to root out personal bias. Something religion does not have. Otherwise Allah or Vishnu or Thor could all be replicated and falsified in a lab setting and would be taught in every science class in every biology class and every grade school, high school and university in every country in the world.

Just because words come out of your mouth, and you have convinced yourself what you are saying is true, does not mean you have a credible model outside your head to replicate and falsify and have independently verified beyond your own personal bias.

Claims are like assholes, everyone has one. SO WHAT? Muslims claim their god is real. Scientologists think their space Jesus is real. Mormons think magic underwear protects them. Muslims think magical harems exist and that forcing women to cover their bodies is ok. Yet we don't teach these things in universities in a lab setting where these claims are demonstrated and replicated and falsified.

Funny how you cant get evidence for the thousands of gods claimed but yet if anyone wants, they can look in a microscope and identify mitosis or ecoli. Funny how human DNA is the same for an atheist, Muslim, Christian or Jew and gravity affects all of us and we don't pray to gravity.

Religion and gods are human superstitions and nothing but projecting human qualities on the wishful thinking of the narcissistic attitude that humans have a super hero and if we'd all chose the right super hero, bad stuff would stop happening.

It makes much more sense that humans invented Isis and Thor and Allah and Vishnu to placate their insecurities about being unwilling to accept their REAL finite existence.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:We're dealing

Thomathy wrote:

We're dealing with a child.

 

Oh, how I love to say.... I told you so.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote: I find

nigelTheBold wrote:
 I find I learn nothing at all from those who think highly of themselves, and perhaps not so highly of those whom they engage.

That's obviously a shot at me, but allow me to clarify that I am not here to teach anyone.  Atheists are unregenerate and are beyond repair.  Only by the grace of God will they be converted.  I am simply here to defend my theology. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
 I find I learn nothing at all from those who think highly of themselves, and perhaps not so highly of those whom they engage.

That's obviously a shot at me, but allow me to clarify that I am not here to teach anyone.  Atheists are unregenerate and are beyond repair.  Only by the grace of God will they be converted.  I am simply here to defend my theology. 

Which is it? Are atheists beyond repair or can they be converted?

Oh - you don't have a theology if you can't define God. "an intelligent being who is because he must be" isn't a theology or much of a definition.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
 I find I learn nothing at all from those who think highly of themselves, and perhaps not so highly of those whom they engage.

That's obviously a shot at me, but allow me to clarify that I am not here to teach anyone.  Atheists are unregenerate and are beyond repair.  Only by the grace of God will they be converted.  I am simply here to defend my theology. 

Bullshit, if you didn't actually buy the idea of your super hero, you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Just like since you don't believe the Sun is a thinking being, you don't try to defend that.

And you are right you are not here to teach because you have nothing valid to teach.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:This is false,

RatDog wrote:

This is false, and not my argument at all.  This is my argument.


(1) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind


(2) The laws of logic only exist were the mind exists(just like a smile, which is ontologically dependent on a face, can only exist were the face is).


    (2a) at no point do to the laws of logic come to exist outside of a mind.


    (2b) while considering things in this world, or other possible worlds, at no point do the laws of logic exist outside of the mind of the person doing the considering.


(3) A human is an intelligent biological entity that posses a mind.  I am defining mind as all of a person's thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences (basically everything they experience). 


     (3a) By it's definition everything a person experiences is in their mind,

  
     (3b) and a person can not experience external reality directly.

 
:. while considering things in this world, or other possible worlds, at no point do the laws of logic exist outside of the mind of the person doing the considering.  When a person considers multiple possible worlds the worlds that person experiences exist in that person's mind, and the logic that person uses also exist in that person's mind(at no point do they directly experiencing external reality were logic does not exist).    All of the imagined possible worlds a person considers exist in the mind of a single intelligent being.  That being is not, as you surmised, God, but is merely the human being that is doing the considering. 

edit:  reworded something

Yes, the application of modal logic requires a mind.  I agree. 

But you are saying nothing more than that humans are unable to imagine a possible world without the laws of logic because they inadvertently put themselves into that world when they apply the logic.  Assuming that you are on the atheist side, this just reduces to you saying that there are possible worlds where the laws of logic do not exist, but we just cannot conceive of them.  You need some basis for believing that a world without the laws of logic is possible.  And this just comes back to the ontological nature of the laws themselves, do you believe they are physical?

You've agreed that the laws of logic require a mind.  Therefore, if the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds, then you have concede that an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.  So, can you please explain how it is possible to have a cat which is also a non-cat?


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullshit, if

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, if you didn't actually buy the idea of your super hero, you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Just like since you don't believe the Sun is a thinking being, you don't try to defend that.

And you are right you are not here to teach because you have nothing valid to teach.

People like you can't be taught. 

Let me guess... you didn't graduate high school and for work, you occasionally help your brother do landscaping and get paid under the table.  When you get home, you spend most of your time looking at pornography and jacking off..... during the day, you occasionally go food shopping and spend your food stamps.  Your father sends you money to pay the rent and utilities, your mother pays for your phone and internet.... and your girlfriend is some country bumpkin with yellow teeth.

Am I pretty close?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Am I

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Am I pretty close?

 

If you PM me your home address, I will email you a hand held mirror and a hairbrush.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, if you didn't actually buy the idea of your super hero, you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Just like since you don't believe the Sun is a thinking being, you don't try to defend that.

And you are right you are not here to teach because you have nothing valid to teach.

People like you can't be taught. 

Let me guess... you didn't graduate high school and for work, you occasionally help your brother do landscaping and get paid under the table.  When you get home, you spend most of your time looking at pornography and jacking off..... during the day, you occasionally go food shopping and spend your food stamps.  Your father sends you money to pay the rent and utilities, your mother pays for your phone and internet.... and your girlfriend is some country bumpkin with yellow teeth.

Am I pretty close?

I love people like you. "If you are so smart how come your not rich".

I am poor, I do live on my own. I do get help from my family. I do have a college degree and I do jack off. Unlike you I don't judge poor people nor do I find my penis to be some forgien monster never to be played with.

What does being supported or poor have to do with your bad arguments. There are plenty of poor women financial supported by men, plenty of rich women supported by men who don't have jobs. Attacking my personal life shows how insecure you are with your own claims. And what would the world be like even if poor people got educations? THAT WOULD SUCK SO BAD wouldn't it?

If I were such a loser retard which you falsely make me out to be, why am I not selling crack or dealing drugs or in prison. I wonder if you surveyed those people in prison what they would claim to believe. Wealth and poverty have nothing to do with the existence of Allah or Thor or Jesus. I am sure all the bank ceo's who wear suits and believe in a god are ok even though they raped the economy and the tax payers, but as long as they believe in god its ok?

Ted Haggart had wealth and so did Jimmy Swagart. Wealth or poverty doesn't make you moral or immoral nor does it prove that one god or another is real.

I do have a job and it is an honest one and could give a shit less what you think about it. What you don't have is evidence for your invisible friend. So instead of addressing that, you again pathetically try once again try to distract people from your own claims.

This pathetic retard loser(me) has read 1984, Animal Farm, the Oedipus Trilogies, The God Delusion, and also know what infinite regress is. Bentrand Russell's teapot, Ocham's razor, the fallacy of Pascal's wager......and lots of other things too.. But I already pointed this out to you in another thread.

There are rich Christians and poor Christians and there are rich Muslims and poor Muslims and there are rich atheists and poor atheists. Wealth has nothing to do with the existence of a god.

And you have nothing to teach me unless you have some god sperm or god DNA that the medical community has independently confirmed and can point out his exact GPS location in the universe. That shouldn't be a problem considering your super hero is "all powerful".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I love people

Brian37 wrote:

I love people like you. "If you are so smart how come your not rich".

I am poor, I do live on my own. I do get help from my family. I do have a college degree and I do jack off. Unlike you I don't judge poor people nor do I find my penis to be some forgien monster never to be played with.

You know what?

I'm actually going to give you credit.  It took some courage for you to step up and admit these things.  Based on the response you've just given, I've actually changed my opinion of you, believe it or not.

I actually believe that you are totally unhappy with your life and atheism is your way of finding comfort in your sadness.  The foul language and zealous ranting is just a smokescreen.

Quote:
What does being supported or poor have to do with your bad arguments. There are plenty of poor women financial supported by men, plenty of rich women supported by men who don't have jobs. Attacking my personal life shows how insecure you are with your own claims. And what would the world be like even if poor people got educations? THAT WOULD SUCK SO BAD wouldn't it?

I believe you are trying to find meaning in your life and this is subconsciously your way of reaching out to God, whom you really do believe in but wish not to acknowledge it.

Quote:
If I were such a loser retard which you falsely make me out to be, why am I not selling crack or dealing drugs or in prison. I wonder if you surveyed those people in prison what they would claim to believe. Wealth and poverty have nothing to do with the existence of Allah or Thor or Jesus. I am sure all the bank ceo's who wear suits and believe in a god are ok even though they raped the economy and the tax payers, but as long as they believe in god its ok?

You are not a loser.  The fact that you acknowledged your situation to me tells me that you are waiting for someone to reach out to you and give meaning to your life.  Otherwise, you would not have just come out and admitted that you were poor and that you need help from your family. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
"given the infinite

"

given the infinite possibilities of states that the world could have been in, the laws of logic do not change."

"They cannot be located in the physical world."

 

Your assertion that they cannot change is only true for the state you are in.  You cannot claim truth about a state that doesn't exist.  Consequently, your argument boils down to 'A mind exists because I can logically deduce that there has to be a mind in this world.'  So, are you god?  Or a mind?  (hint:  I'd pick the delusion of grandeur, because it'll prove to be more fun for you)  Also, because of the definition of logic, you are presupposing your conclusion in premise 1.


 

 

Oh and this:  (I'm curious to see how this goes over with everyone...)

 

Logic - the study of reasoning.

 

Reason - the mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises.

 

I am now going to suggest that since 'logic' reduces to a HUMAN mental faculty, that it is very possible it COULD be wrong.  I have no reason to believe that any human faculty is perfect, and personally have found little reason to believe that perfection in any form is possible. 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
For fuck's sake Fortunate Son

 

You've mistreated a person whose inherent good heartedness is clear in each and every one of his posts and now you've got the gall to be magnanimous about it? Are you really here to defend your theology? Maybe a little christ-like behaviour instead of your usual impression of a pompous wanker might serve your purpose better. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote: We can

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 We can wrangle about this until the cows come home, but academia is on my side.  Here you go:

"Some but not all arguments, then, are tautologies.  The argument form Modus Ponens, for example, is valid but is not a tautology."

www.newworldenylclopedia.org/entry/Tautology

 

 

To be fair, VP's assertion was that Modus Tollens is a tautology, and he is right about that, even your encyclopedia agrees. But that is not my argument and I just jumped in on the point about Clouds and Rain not being connected by definition because they are. Basically, the idea of calling the relationship between clouds and rain synthetic was just too much silly to ignore.

I believe it is a kind of willful ignorance that is leading you to such absurd assertions as the "clouds and rain are only synthetically connected" and "logic must come from God". Just like you ignored the fact that rain and clouds are the same thing and you're inclined to ignore that the "minds" putting forth this logic are a function of nature not the least bit unlike a flower opening petals to the sun or a squirrel rejecting a leaf to uncover an acorn, you also ignore that logic as we use it presently is the product of several thousand years in exercise. Consistency is the nature of our observation/interaction with the universe, the logical process is, at most, a mimicry of that reality and, at least, not in our control in that it is the habit of our existence. But it is not removed from nature, it is not above nature.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Thomathy

Marquis wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

We're dealing with a child.

 

Oh, how I love to say.... I told you so.

Say it for me too.

I'm always blown away when someone who gives credence to TAG can appear to look smart.  Fortunate Son seems to have been educated at a University on matters of philosophy, yet gives credence to the lamest argument in theology.  His brain is in disarray... disordered... 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
If I ever said "modus

If I ever said "modus tollens" in this discussion, then I apologize. I didn't mean to do that. For some reason or another, I found myself typing "modus tollens" and then correcting myself over and over again, like a smoker who smacks their hand they reach for a cigarette. I thought that I corrected myself every time it happened, but it seems that I didn't. I intended only to talk about modus ponens. Specifically, I intended to argue that modus ponens are always tautological statements. I suspect, however, that the disagreement is not about the essence of reasoning itself, but about the definition of modus ponens.

I define modus ponens as "the statement [(P^(P→Q))→Q] where Q is an atomic proposition of P". Defined this way, modus ponens arguments always evaluate to true, because the very meaning of "P obtains" includes "Q obtains". The only way for P to obtain without Q obtaining too would be for P to be ~P, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. This is the reason that I said earlier that modus ponens does not need to be derived from the law of non-contradiction — defined this way, it is a straight-forward application of that law: Q obtains when P obtains, otherwise P is ~P, which is impossible.

It seems that Fortunate_Son defines it as "the statement [(P^(P→Q))→Q] where Q might be or might not be an atomic proposition of P". This way, modus ponens can evaluate to either true or false. Falsehoods are always contradictions of the truth, so modus ponens (under this definition) would not be a straight-forward application of the law of non-contradiction, nor could it be derived from it, for the simple reason that the law of non-contradiction cannot result in contradictions. If it can, then God save us all — even if you don't exist!

Fortunate_Son asked how one could derive modus ponens from the law of non-contradiction. It seemed like a straight-forward question to me, since my understanding of modus ponens does not even need derivation. P includes Q obtaining, so Q obtains when P obtains, lest P = ~P, which is forbidden by the law of non-contradiction. He was using a very different definition of the term though. If the paragraph above is right about how he defines the term, then he was asking us how one could derive from the law of non-contradiction a form of reasoning that can result in contradictions. It is utterly bizarre that anyone would even pose such a question. If the paragraph above is wrong about how he defines the term, and he doesn't agree with my definition of it, then I don't know what he is even asking.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Coming back to what I said,

Coming back to what I said, I want to retract my statement about modus ponens being a tautology. I was mistaken in that regard. A tautology is a formula that is always true, regardless of whether you consider each of the variables true or false. If you declare true P, and declare false the entailment of Q by P, then the formula would give an incorrect result, so it is not a tautology.

(That is not to say that I retract my definition of modus ponens though — just to be clear. If I am given a good reason to prefer some other definition, then I will retract my current definition and take up that other one, but I see no reason to do so as of right now.)

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Brian37

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I love people like you. "If you are so smart how come your not rich".

I am poor, I do live on my own. I do get help from my family. I do have a college degree and I do jack off. Unlike you I don't judge poor people nor do I find my penis to be some forgien monster never to be played with.

You know what?

I'm actually going to give you credit.  It took some courage for you to step up and admit these things.  Based on the response you've just given, I've actually changed my opinion of you, believe it or not.

I actually believe that you are totally unhappy with your life and atheism is your way of finding comfort in your sadness.  The foul language and zealous ranting is just a smokescreen.

Quote:
What does being supported or poor have to do with your bad arguments. There are plenty of poor women financial supported by men, plenty of rich women supported by men who don't have jobs. Attacking my personal life shows how insecure you are with your own claims. And what would the world be like even if poor people got educations? THAT WOULD SUCK SO BAD wouldn't it?

I believe you are trying to find meaning in your life and this is subconsciously your way of reaching out to God, whom you really do believe in but wish not to acknowledge it.

Quote:
If I were such a loser retard which you falsely make me out to be, why am I not selling crack or dealing drugs or in prison. I wonder if you surveyed those people in prison what they would claim to believe. Wealth and poverty have nothing to do with the existence of Allah or Thor or Jesus. I am sure all the bank ceo's who wear suits and believe in a god are ok even though they raped the economy and the tax payers, but as long as they believe in god its ok?

You are not a loser.  The fact that you acknowledged your situation to me tells me that you are waiting for someone to reach out to you and give meaning to your life.  Otherwise, you would not have just come out and admitted that you were poor and that you need help from your family. 

This shows what a bigoted  classist pig and sexist pig you are. You would NOT say the same thing to my female co-workers who make less than me who are supported by their husbands.

Tom Lykis is an atheist and he is a rich radio talk show host he is just as blasphemous as I am. He probably would cuss too if the censors would let him. So what you are saying is only rich people can be outspoken? What is he waiting for?

Its funny, if a poor gas station attendant volunteered for his church by going door to door to "spread the word", and didn't get paid for it, you'd say he is contributing, but because I am not selling your position and because I am poor I am not contributing.

I am unhappy with lots of things, but not everything. And nothing to do with my pay scale or my class or my job.  Unlike far too many people I don't see paychecks or titles automatically making someone moral or immoral. I don't see material things making someone automatically moral or immoral. And I don't see money as a cure all or the sole meaning of life.

I AM unhappy with the state of ignorance in humanity. I am unhappy with this day and age where people have ipods and computers still spew ancient myth as if it is fact. I am unhappy with it's overreaching influance in politics. And I am doing something about it. You just don't like what I am doing . Too bad, that is your hang up, not mine.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote:I

Visual_Paradox wrote:

I define modus ponens as "the statement [(P^(P→Q))→Q] where Q is an atomic proposition of P". Defined this way, modus ponens arguments always evaluate to true, because the very meaning of "P obtains" includes "Q obtains". The only way for P to obtain without Q obtaining too would be for P to be ~P, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. This is the reason that I said earlier that modus ponens does not need to be derived from the law of non-contradiction — defined this way, it is a straight-forward application of that law: Q obtains when P obtains, otherwise P is ~P, which is impossible.

It seems that Fortunate_Son defines it as "the statement [(P^(P→Q))→Q] where Q might be or might not be an atomic proposition of P".

No.  If the premise is "p-->q", then you are saying that q is a proposition of p.  The problem is that you are conflating analytic relationships with synthetic relationships.  Analytic claims are always tautological or a priori.  For example, "All bachelors are unmarried" is analytic and can essentially be translated as "All bachelors are bachelors".  The premise, "If someone is a bachelor, then he is unmarried" can be symbolized in the following way: "(x) Bx-->Ux, where B = U".  Synthetic claims are those whereby the statement cannot be falsified using the law of non-contradiction.  For example, "Some people are angry" requires justification in sense experience.  That statement can be symbolized in the following way:  "(Ex) Px-->Ax".

This is why the fallacies affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent exist.  For example;

(1) If it is overcast, then clouds exist.

(2) Clouds exist.

(3) Therefore, it is overcast.

OR

(1) If it is overcast, then clouds exist.

(2) It is not overcast.

(3) Therefore, clouds do not exist.

If what you say is true, then not only would Q be entailed by P, but P would automatically be entailed by Q.  Therefore, it would be impossible to err by denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent.  But clearly, you can neither infer that it is overcast by virtue of clouds existed nor can you infer that clouds do not exist simply because it is not overcast.  But watch this:

(1) If Joe is a bachelor, then Joe is unmarried.

(2) Joe is unmarried.

(3) Therefore, Joe is a bachelor.

This would only be an invalid inference by way of affirming the consequent, which is only possible if the connectives p and q are related synthetically.  Otherwise, it will yield truth every time you apply it.  So while modus ponens does apply non-contradiction, since laws of logic never exist in a vacuum (i.e. we also apply many other things), they are not derivatives.

So my original question still applies:  Bob Spence said that you could observe the law of non-contradiction in nature.  But what about numerous other axioms and theorems which are a priori and not derived from LNC?  Where are they?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:That's

Fortunate_Son wrote:
That's like saying that Eloise's living body is an actuality and that necessitates that Eloise's dead body exists.

Well it does necessitate, Fortunate_Son. Honestly, I don't understand how you can possibly object.

What is life if not for death? animate if not for inanimate?

Yes, we label things assuming stuff we don't immediately verify, you say: because we assume Eloise's dead body exists before it actually happens; if Eloise's dead body does eventuate, then God - cause where else can the consistency come from... ? Personally, I'm not inclined to be quite so superstitious as all that.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

What philosophy is this?!

Funny you should say that. It's certainly not this strange insular purist philosophy you're showing off to us here (which, incidentally has finally made clear to me why Modern physics is so reluctant to get in bed with it), its rather more a scientific viewpoint.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Quote:
"A" isn't a property it's a label, what A labels you most definitely do observe in A. This is the category error that others have been contending that you're making.

So why are you not telling Nigel he is wrong since he has explicitly stated that it is a property? 

"A" is not a label.  I'm not even talking about names.  We could have no verbal or written language and still apply the law of identity.

Ack! Why are you missing the point, already?!  The category error, Fortunate_Son.  By the sounds of your argument you are conflating the label with the property, as far as I understand Nigel is trying to say that as much as I am, so I have no reason to disagree with him.

At any rate, what I am saying is that you do observe an Eloise in Eloise, how are you thinking you're able to say that we can't, how can Eloise be Eloise if there is nothing connecting them in the real world.

It's like you're trying to do your philosophy in a vacuum and calling it a heat bath, it's just so unscientific. Icky for me.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
I have no clue how you read

I have no clue how you read what I wrote that way. I said that the molecular proposition P contains the atomic proposition Q. That is much like saying that a molecule of water contains an atom of oxygen. Then, you said that, if that were true, one could infer from Q that P. That is much like saying that, if it were true that a molecule of water contains an atom of oxygen, that one would have a molecule of water if one had just an atom of oxygen. Your response made no sense at all.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No, I am a neutral monist, I do not believe consciousness resides in brains, guess again.

I'm not guessing.  I'm asking you.

No, really. It came across like a guess. 

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:


Quote:
Yes, I am saying that the logic of UI, and of course, UG, is derived from that very process. The logic we engage in presently is a matured, refined version of it and its consistency derives from the basic nature of the labelling/cataloguing interaction itself.

HAHA!  Do you know how idiotic that is?  You are saying that we derive logic from a logical process that is similar to logic but not logic.  So what accounts for the logic from which we derive logic?  You cannot use logic to derive itself. 

No I didn't.  It's your presupposition that it's a logical process, not mine. You described it in its experiential terms, to which I agreed, and now you're trying to put words in my mouth about it.

Understand, I don't agree that it is a "logical process" at all, it's the natural process "logic" mimics it, that's why logic works.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Fortunate_Son

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
That's like saying that Eloise's living body is an actuality and that necessitates that Eloise's dead body exists.

Well it does necessitate, Fortunate_Son. Honestly, I don't understand how you can possibly object.

What is life if not for death? animate if not for inanimate?

I'm objecting that ~A is a thing in itself.  It's simply the set of all things that do not contain A, the cardinality of which would be too large for us to comprehend.  It would be like saying that an atheist has a non-belief in God, implying that an atheist believes in everything except for God insofar that non-belief in God would be the set of all beliefs that do not contain God.  (FWIW, I actually accept that atheism is a general lack and not an actual worldview in and of itself-- my objection is to the disingenuous neutrality that is constantly promulgated by atheists.  They may lack belief in God, but they have a bunch of other beliefs that they do have to defend to a theist and thus they will ultimately presume some burden of proof on their end). 

This is why it makes no sense to say that you can observe non-contradiction in nature.  We can observe A, B, C, D.. etc.  We cannot observe ~A and therefore we could not have observed that ~A is NOT A. 

You seem to be positing some sort of Eastern yin-yang philosophy. 

Quote:
Yes, we label things assuming stuff we don't immediately verify, you say: because we assume Eloise's dead body exists before it actually happens; if Eloise's dead body does eventuate, then God - cause where else can the consistency come from... ? Personally, I'm not inclined to be quite so superstitious as all that.

All my argument assumes is that the laws of logic are necessary and they are ontologically dependent upon a mind.  God is strictly inferred from those premises and those premises alone.

Quote:
Ack! Why are you missing the point, already?!  The category error, Fortunate_Son.  By the sounds of your argument you are conflating the label with the property, as far as I understand Nigel is trying to say that as much as I am, so I have no reason to disagree with him.

At any rate, what I am saying is that you do observe an Eloise in Eloise, how are you thinking you're able to say that we can't, how can Eloise be Eloise if there is nothing connecting them in the real world.

You are talking about connecting the symbol with the physical being.  Labels are arbitrary.  If I decided that my dog should be called a "cat", then it would be a cat.  I'm talking about the basic assumptions which allow for this sort of codification to happen.

You continually say that it is a natural process.  This is really fuzzy and if you are saying what I think you are saying, it is ultimately untenable and simply biting the bullet in order to bring the discussion into a stalemate.

Quote:
It's like you're trying to do your philosophy in a vacuum and calling it a heat bath, it's just so unscientific. Icky for me.

Of course it isn't scientific!  Why would it be a scientific question?  It's a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You've mistreated a person whose inherent good heartedness is clear in each and every one of his posts and now you've got the gall to be magnanimous about it? Are you really here to defend your theology? Maybe a little christ-like behaviour instead of your usual impression of a pompous wanker might serve your purpose better. 

 

I appreciate the back up, but If atheists, much less the poor, don't keep a thick skin, people like this will get what they want. I don't take this personally, I simply fight back. I am not as fragile as he or anyone might think.

I was merely pissed at the continuing diversion tactics away from the fact that we called him on the debunked TAG argument and pointed out that a persons class or paycheck does not prove Allah over Jesus over Yahweh.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You've mistreated a person whose inherent good heartedness is clear in each

I've read most of his posts and they are mostly angry tirades towards theists using personal insults and foul language.  To deal with such people, it is sometimes necessary to condescend to their level.  

But I can now tell that the issue goes far deeper than this debate.  The fact that he was able to admit what he admitted is testimony to that. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I'm

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I'm objecting that ~A is a thing in itself.  It's simply the set of all things that do not contain A, the cardinality of which would be too large for us to comprehend. 

But if ~A is not a thing in itself, if it is not a finite set that ends at A then A can not exist anyway. To say A exists presupposes that the cardinality of ~A is comprehended, the last element identified.  To say that where ~A ends is incomprehensible, while it is true,  precludes identity.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

You continually say that it is a natural process.  This is really fuzzy and if you are saying what I think you are saying, it is ultimately untenable and simply biting the bullet in order to bring the discussion into a stalemate.

Logic is dodgy, Fortunate Son. As I said from the start, if you want to account for logic then account for the holes in it.

That logic mimics the natural process by which we interact with the universe is demonstrable and it accounts for the gaps. Idolating logic by attributing its nature to a perfect being, OTOH, leaves you nowhere to go on the problem of identity, Quantum physics and the science of the mind-body problem, because these empirical realities flummox classical logic.

 

Quote:

Quote:
It's like you're trying to do your philosophy in a vacuum and calling it a heat bath, it's just so unscientific. Icky for me.

Of course it isn't scientific!  Why would it be a scientific question?  It's a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one.

I said I find the unscientificness of it Icky. It's all very well to do metaphysics as purely as you like as long as you don't forget, when relating it to the real world you have to bring back all those elements of the real world that were ignored in your quest for purity.

 

EDIT: Sorry these pieces somehow became lost while I was writing -

Fortunate_Son wrote:

All my argument assumes is that the laws of logic are necessary and they are ontologically dependent upon a mind.  God is strictly inferred from those premises and those premises alone.

In my first reply to you I gave you a link to point out how unnecessary the "Laws of Logic" actually are in the empirical universe. Have you read it?

Fortunate_son wrote:

You are talking about connecting the symbol with the physical being.  Labels are arbitrary.  If I decided that my dog should be called a "cat", then it would be a cat. 

No it would be a dog. It's not as simple as changing the name. "dog" maps to many distinct properties that cat does not.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I'm talking about the basic assumptions which allow for this sort of codification to happen.

clarify, please.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:But if ~A is

Eloise wrote:

But if ~A is not a thing in itself, if it is not a finite set that ends at A then A can not exist anyway. To say A exists presupposes that the cardinality of ~A is comprehended, the last element identified.  To say that where ~A ends is incomprehensible, while it is true,  precludes identity.

But if ~(A & ~A) is a priori, then it is not necessary to comprehend the entire cardinality of ~A.  We can know prior to experience that A is not contained in the set of ~A, even without having particularly observed every element contained within the set. 

Quote:
Logic is dodgy, Fortunate Son. As I said from the start, if you want to account for logic then account for the holes in it.

What holes?

Quote:
That logic mimics the natural process by which we interact with the universe is demonstrable and it accounts for the gaps.

Define "natural process".

Quote:
 because these empirical realities flummox classical logic.

How so?  Examples?

Quote:
I said I find the unscientificness of it Icky. It's all very well to do metaphysics as purely as you like as long as you don't forget, when relating it to the real world you have to bring back all those elements of the real world that were ignored in your quest for purity.

Science is enslaved to philosophy because science cannot justify its own methodology using science itself.  It presupposes the validity of empiricism, which is itself a metaphysical view that one must adopt either by faith or by metaphysics.  Truth is not assessed in the same way in all cases... you would not verify evolution in the same way that you would verify that there are hot dogs in my freezer.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Quote:
In my first reply to you I gave you a link to point out how unnecessary the "Laws of Logic" actually are in the empirical universe. Have you read it?

No.  You can paste some quotes that are relevant to the point that you want to make or present your views in your own words.  I'm not going to read through a long article, the relevance of which I cannot assess before I actually read it.

Quote:
No it would be a dog. It's not as simple as changing the name. "dog" maps to many distinct properties that cat does not.

If we decide that a dog should be referred to as a "cat" and society agrees, then dogs are cats.  But now you are no longer talking about labels, you are talking about conceptual containment.  I'm actually with you on that.

Quote:
clarify, please.

We could not possibly apply any scientific methodology without applying the laws of logic.  There is absolutely no way someone would be able to codify their perceptions into a coherent set unless s/he had guidelines of rationality to defer to.  Perception is a two way street.  It is a givenness and it also making sense of that which is given.  The latter requires logic.  Immanuel Kant sums it up perfectly when he states, "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."  You cannot account for the understanding by invoking the content which is understood.  Objects are not going to magically close the epistemological gap using their own properties and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that they can.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You've mistreated a person whose inherent good heartedness is clear in each

I've read most of his posts and they are mostly angry tirades towards theists using personal insults and foul language.  To deal with such people, it is sometimes necessary to condescend to their level.  

But I can now tell that the issue goes far deeper than this debate.  The fact that he was able to admit what he admitted is testimony to that. 

Ok Dr Phil since I am so wrong why wont you take me on in the thread I started. A "raving madman" like me should be easy to defeat.

I am sure you have proof of your god sperm, even for people who aren't poor, even for the more well off atheists on this board. You are here to convince them too, aren't you?

Or is it distracting everyone from your invisible friend is what counts most?

YES it is an angry tirade. SO WHAT? You claim that a brain with no brain exists. Then when you cant present your case you make wealth and poverty the linchpin as to your god's existence . I called you on it and now you ar are miffed?

Yes IT IS DEEP, but deeper than you have the comprehension for. Reality is not good vs evil like fans of super heros like to make it out to be. Reality is that shit happens and there is no magic to it. THE DEEP PART is what you dont want to face. That to problem solve you don't plug super heros into a gap or make stereotypes the default. The DEEP part is that gaps are not either or and that STUDY and FALSIFICATION are what go beyond yours or my personal bias.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote: because these

Quote:
Quote:
 because these empirical realities flummox classical logic.

How so?  Examples?

 

Do you know what the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is?

 

And metaphysics presupposes the perfection of logic.  I gave my reasons for doubting how perfect you seem to think it is.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:But if

Fortunate_Son wrote:


But if ~(A & ~A) is a priori, then it is not necessary to comprehend the entire cardinality of ~A. 



~A is presupposed a finite "thing" in that equation, too.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

We can know prior to experience that  A is not contained in the set of ~A, even without having particularly observed every element contained within the set.


Without any ontological basis for supposing the set ~A ends somewhere we just infer from "it does" that A begins? 

No, the application of identity is purely an ersatz replica of the nature by which we appear to exist as individuals and it works thus because it is tailored to the existence of mind in that way, as Bob earlier argued.

The inherent orderliness of nature which makes it possible that out minds exists is only "orderly" because it is one with our minds.


Fortunate Son wrote:

No.  You can paste some quotes that are relevant to the point that you want to make or present your views in your own words.  I'm not going to read through a long article, the relevance of which I cannot assess before I actually read it.


Did you even click on the link?  I find it hard to believe you did because I linked you directly to the relevant section which is barely three paragraphs long.


Fortunate Son wrote:


What holes?

Fortunate Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

     because these empirical realities flummox classical logic.


How so?  Examples?


The article I linked gave a list of about 5 controversies on contradiction alone. Including: Truth Value Gaps, From Contradiction Infer Everything (A.K.A. Explosion principle), The Liar and Schroedingers Cat.


Fortunate_Son wrote:


Define "natural process".


see above (second paragraph)

Fortunate_Son wrote:

If we decide that a dog should be referred to as a "cat" and society agrees, then dogs are cats.  But now you are no longer talking about labels, you are talking about conceptual containment.  I'm actually with you on that.


Conceptual containent is a dualistic assertion, there's no basis for believing that a concept is "contained" by a mind.

Fortunate_Son wrote:


Science is enslaved to philosophy because science cannot justify its own methodology using science itself.


And logic can?
OOps, there goes your argument.....

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 It presupposes the validity of empiricism,



It's only for your stubborness that you can't see logic has the same basis, I'm sure.
 
Fortunate_Son wrote:

which is itself a metaphysical view that one must adopt either by faith or by metaphysics.


Dualist mythicism. Empiricism isn't a metaphysical view,  it's the very nature of the existence that we know.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmph

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

You've mistreated a person whose inherent good heartedness is clear in each

I've read most of his posts and they are mostly angry tirades towards theists using personal insults and foul language.  To deal with such people, it is sometimes necessary to condescend to their level.  

But I can now tell that the issue goes far deeper than this debate.  The fact that he was able to admit what he admitted is testimony to that. 

 

Have you really read all his posts? The man is forthright but his true nature is always there. He's among the first to greet newbies, he's supportive of the kids and he rails against injustice and the mistreatment of minorities and women. To single Brian out as the site's core hardass is erroneous. Probably the personal targeting of the less well off is the thing that gets me. As a preacher's child I grew up in a state of shoeless poverty living half on the generosity of the flock and the other half on my mother's part time teaching job as dad rebounded from unrepentant underpaying churches and spent 3 years incapacitated as a result of lingering war injuries. After school my brother and I spent years living in a caravan/trailer in my big sister's backyard. In hindsight I think that connection with basic need is a singular strength.

As to his 'admission', the fact Brian has the bravery to acknowledge himself is no surprise. In case you missed it, that's what most of us are doing here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You really have no clue.

My statement was not about trying prove 'Logic', it was about the standard process of deducing higher order theorems from the axioms of the system, IOW that things like 'modus tolens' etc follow from, ie are consistent with, the axioms of Logic.

Please tell me:

How do you derive "p-->q, p, :.q" from "~(p & ~p)"?

That isn't a theorem, that is the definition of 'p-->q' - but if the result could also be ~q, then it would violate ~(p & ~p).

Quote:

Quote:
You don't even know the difference between an axiom and a theorem???

It does not matter.  They are equally laws of logic that apply in every possible world.

Neither are 'laws of logic'. An axiom is a initial assumption, a theorem is a relationship that has been shown to consistent with the laws of logic.

Quote:

Plus, I just cited an axiom and not a theorem!

If you mean 'p-->q' that is not an axiom - what you cited is the definition of '-->'.

Quote:

Quote:
But I can still put that in some sort of simple context:

That axiom is clearly devised to help simplify certain messy propositions, so it was the observation that modal logic can give rise to such propositions that it was suggested that it might be worth expressing it in that form. 'Simple' problem solving, not strictly involving the application of logic, but finding a way to best handle the realities that arise in applying the logic system.

You've clearly just made this up. 

What principles did we "devise" this from? 

You are just playing a shell game whereby you state that any logical principle that I cite is derived from your imaginary "fundamental" properties of reality.  For example:

Quote:
This is not what my response was about - you had asked from what observation would I derive a particular logic statement from, which is a nonsense, in that any statement or theorem beyond the axioms is ultimately logically derived and proved from those axioms. That is how math and logic work! Only the axioms need to be externally justified, they are by definition primary statements not provable within the system.

We judge logical vs illogical by whether an argument is ultimately is consistent with logical theorems, which are all ultimately based on the LOI and the LNC. 

IOW, something is illogical if it can be shown by applying logical analysis to it to contain a contradiction, and so violating that axiom (LNC).

Actually, you are wrong.

Take the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent:

(1) P --> Q

(2) ~Q

(3) :. ~P

There is absolutely no contradiction.  Yet this is illogical, that is to say, an error in reasoning.  There are no possible worlds where such reasoning is valid.

Are you saying anything that does not contain a contradiction must be derived from ~(p & ~p)? 

There is no contradiction, because that argument is valid - you have mis-stated the argument. It should be:

 

(1) P --> Q

(2) ~P

(3) :. ~Q

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 

This proper statement of this fallacy is invalid because:

(1) P --> Q ... ie (P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q) or (~P & Q) or (~P & ~Q) - Definitional truth table for '-->'

(2) ~P

therefore

(3) ~Q or Q .... from (1), 3rd and 4th entries in truth table

Your conclusion would imply that ~(~P & Q), but the definition of P --> Q allows that (~P & Q) is consistent with P --> Q.

These two expression cannot both be true by the LNC.

So, epic fail on that one.

Thank you for demonstrating yet again that while you have read stuff on logic, you have no insight or understanding of the subject.

Quote:

Quote:
I am pretty sure that you don't think there can be an alternative coherent universe in which things can be both themselves and their opposites. So the observation that we base the LNC on is that we cannot imagine a universe that could exist where the LNC did not hold, and it certainly makes sense here. It is about as fundamental as you can get, and it works, and we cannot conceive of how it could not apply. More than adequate justification to accept it, I would think.

But I'm not saying that the laws of logic are necessary because we cannot think of an alternative.  That presupposes that an alternative is actually possible.  That is not my position at all.  You, on the other hand, acknowledge that we extrapolate them from empirical observation of reality (via neurological wiring determined by evolution) even though we cannot possibly observe that they apply universally, yet you are able to say they are fundamental because we cannot think any other way.  Their universal application is tenable only if they are not justified in empirical observations and no alternative exists.  I am saying that the laws of logic are, by their nature, self-verifying, a priori, and necessary.  Conceivability-possibility and retortion does lend creedence to their transcendent nature, but ultimately, you cannot justify the laws of logic with anything external to them because they are ultimately the foundation for proof itself.  Now how do you reconcile that with the fact that laws of logic exist in minds?

Total non-sequiter.

You are still simply conflating the codification in the form of the "laws of logic", which requires a mind, with the existence of what that codification is referring to, namely aspects of reality which are indeed, arguably, "self-verifying, a priori, and necessary". This is your persistent, fundamental error.

Our own conception and application of those laws is inevitably contingent and imperfect and evolutionary based, like all our mental processes, but that is irrelevant to your core argument.

Your argument is ultimately that order in the universe is dependent on an intelligent creator, but science shows that order does not require mind, rather the emergence of mind requires some element of order in reality.

Quote:

Quote:
You ask, what kind of epistemology is that? The same as yours, in principle, as it seems you cannot conceive of a Universe that could be coherent without God - you certainly have not provided a serious argument, just this persistent conflation of the codification with what is being codified.

Being evolutionarily determined actually means that it must work to a useful extent. No human knowledge, whether purporting to be knowledge of logic or God, can be perfect, so that's as good as we can hope for.

Being evolutionarily determined means that our wiring is forced upon us by natural selection and there is absolutely no correlation between that and actual knowledge.  If evolution determined, for example, that we have to believe in God, it does not necessarily follow that God actually exists.  It only follows that we are forced by our neurological wiring to believe in God.  There would be no reason to even trust that we are actually being logical.

 

You are absolutely wrong about natural selection implying that "there is absolutely no correlation between that and actual knowledge". The reverse is the case.

Natural selection implies that any knowledge relevant to survival and reproduction is far more likely to be correlated with truth than not. That is how it works.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:~A is

Eloise wrote:

~A is presupposed a finite "thing" in that equation, too.

What difference does that make?  Just because something is "finite" does not mean that we can know it.  There are a finite number of stars in our galaxy, does that mean that it is actually possible for a finite being to know everything about each one of them?

Fortunate_Son wrote:

We can know prior to experience that  A is not contained in the set of ~A, even without having particularly observed every element contained within the set.


Quote:
Without any ontological basis for supposing the set ~A ends somewhere we just infer from "it does" that A begins? 

Logic does not require any basis for justification.  The laws of logic are self-justified and self-verifying, which is why I can say that all bachelors are unmarried males even without having observed every single unmarried male on this planet.

Quote:
No, the application of identity is purely an ersatz replica of the nature by which we appear to exist as individuals and it works thus because it is tailored to the existence of mind in that way, as Bob earlier argued.

You can't even account for the law of identity.  You, much like Bob, are positing some mysterious "something" that is out there accounting for logic which we cannot even articulate. 

Quote:
The inherent orderliness of nature which makes it possible that out minds exists is only "orderly" because it is one with our minds.

That does not even make sense.... though I guess since logic is not transcendent, it does not have to.  I'll just invent a formal system which agrees with you.

Quote:
Did you even click on the link?  I find it hard to believe you did because I linked you directly to the relevant section which is barely three paragraphs long.

I did.  I don't feel like reading the article.  You can tell me what your views are and I'll addres them.

Quote:
The article I linked gave a list of about 5 controversies on contradiction alone. Including: Truth Value Gaps, From Contradiction Infer Everything (A.K.A. Explosion principle), The Liar and Schroedingers Cat.

I'm asking you to tell me about these controversies.  No offense, but your assertions are not convincing.  How is logic violated in these instances and by what logic do you judge that logic is violated?

Quote:
see above (second paragraph)

Are you interested in serious dialogue or not?  Are you even capable of clearly articulating your position?


Quote:
Conceptual containent is a dualistic assertion, there's no basis for believing that a concept is "contained" by a mind.

What?  Conceptual containment refers to a kind of relationship between terms and their descriptors, it has nothing to do with the relationship between mind and concepts.

Quote:
And logic can?
OOps, there goes your argument.....

Logic does not justify its methodology.  It does not need to.  Logical principles are self-justified. 

The same cannot be said for empirical principles.  Scientists even admit that they are potentially revisable and science has gotten it wrong on many occasions (see phlogiston theory). 

Quote:
It's only for your stubborness that you can't see logic has the same basis, I'm sure.

Our perception requires objects to be given and understood.  Nature can account for their givenness, but it does not account for our understanding of them. 

Quote:
Dualist mythicism. Empiricism isn't a metaphysical view,  it's the very nature of the existence that we know.

Yes it is.  Metaphysics (translated: "After the physics" ) refers to that which supersedes scientific investigation.  There is not a single scientist who has justified, using science, that all knowledge comes from empirical observation.  Empiricism is a faith-based metaphysical view.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That isn't

BobSpence1 wrote:

That isn't a theorem, that is the definition of 'p-->q' - but if the result could also be ~q, then it would violate ~(p & ~p).

Please answer the question. 

Quote:
Neither are 'laws of logic'. An axiom is a initial assumption, a theorem is a relationship that has been shown to consistent with the laws of logic.

Law of logic is an umbrella term referring to the principles (or statements) which dictate proper inference and coherency in thought.  This can apply equally to modus ponens just as it could the law of non-contradiction.

Quote:
If you mean 'p-->q' that is not an axiom - what you cited is the definition of '-->'.

Umm, no.  I cited an axiom of modal logic.

Quote:
There is no contradiction, because that argument is valid - you have mis-stated the argument. It should be:

(1) P --> Q

(2) ~P

(3) :. ~Q

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 

It was a typo. 

Quote:
This proper statement of this fallacy is invalid because:

(1) P --> Q ... ie (P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q) or (~P & Q) or (~P & ~Q)

Okay, this clearly wasn't a typo.

P-->Q implies ~ P v Q.  It does NOT imply P & Q, or any of the other things you've cited.

If what you say is true, then I should be able to derive Q from P using P & Q as the first premise:

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) P

(3) Q <1,2; MP>

 

But I cannot.  Watch:
 

(1) P & Q

(2) P <1; Simplification>

(3) Q <1,2; ?????>


Q can only be freed by simplication from the first premise and there is absolutely no way to derive Q from the second premise.  So you clearly do not even understand the definition of conditional statements, let alone their ontological basis.

 

Furthermore, you gave contradictory definitions to P-->Q!  Watch:

 

(1) P & Q <3rd definition>

(2) ~P & Q <4th definition>

(3) P <1;Simp>

(4) ~P <2; Simp>

(5) P & ~P <3,4; Conj>

 

So since you couldn't even get past that, there is no need to address the rest of what you've stated.

Quote:
You are absolutely wrong about natural selection implying that "there is absolutely no correlation between that and actual knowledge". The reverse is the case.

How do you know?  You are just begging the question.

You could wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee and then turn on TV... and your chemistry could tell you that the cup of coffee caused the TV to go on.

Quote:
Natural selection implies that any knowledge relevant to survival and reproduction is far more likely to be correlated with truth than not. That is how it works.

That's just an assumption.  Just because something is more conducive to a particular purpose does not mean that it is true.  By that metric, we could justify all sorts of false beliefs. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

~A is presupposed a finite "thing" in that equation, too.

What difference does that make?

You contended that ~A wasn't a thing at all, that's what difference it makes. Don't try and move the goal posts.

 



Fortunate_Son wrote:

We can know prior to experience that  A is not contained in the set of ~A, even without having particularly observed every element contained within the set.

Quote:
Without any ontological basis for supposing the set ~A ends somewhere we just infer from "it does" that A begins? 

Logic does not require any basis for justification. 

You're dodging. Stop dodging.

Fortunate_Son wrote:

The laws of logic are self-justified and self-verifying, which is why I can say that all bachelors are unmarried males even without having observed every single unmarried male on this planet.

That's because of the tautology : Bachelors <--> unmarried men. The same does not apply to Uncountable <--> Exclusive .

Sorry, you can't justify the assertion ~A exists by tautology it's established by retorsive argument which is empirical, experiential, direct ..... natural.

Quote:

 

You can't even account for the law of identity. 

I don't account for it, it ultimately fails physics anyway so what's the point?

 

Quote:

You, much like Bob, are positing some mysterious "something" that is out there accounting for logic which we cannot even articulate. 

It's not a "mysterious something", and it's not "out there" what the hell kind of hyperbolic deflection are you trying on?

It derives from simplest assumption of Monism - minds are made of the same stuff as the rest of universe. The "I" concept is basic to the nature of an "I" (henceforth referred to as Ego).

that is, it is not given that an Ego is a thing unto itself but it proceeds from the nature of itself and hence order which mimics that nature is rational to an Ego.

I suspect you do understand and are simply digging in your heels against it because it so strongly conflicts with the popular theology you hold dear.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That isn't a theorem, that is the definition of 'p-->q' - but if the result could also be ~q, then it would violate ~(p & ~p).

Please answer the question. 

Quote:
Neither are 'laws of logic'. An axiom is a initial assumption, a theorem is a relationship that has been shown to consistent with the laws of logic.

Law of logic is an umbrella term referring to the principles (or statements) which dictate proper inference and coherency in thought.  This can apply equally to modus ponens just as it could the law of non-contradiction.

Axioms and Theorems are NOT principles or 'laws of logic".

Quote:

Quote:
If you mean 'p-->q' that is not an axiom - what you cited is the definition of '-->'.

Umm, no.  I cited an axiom of modal logic.

Quote:
There is no contradiction, because that argument is valid - you have mis-stated the argument. It should be:

(1) P --> Q

(2) ~P

(3) :. ~Q

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 

It was a typo. 

Quote:
This proper statement of this fallacy is invalid because:

(1) P --> Q ... ie (P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q) or (~P & Q) or (~P & ~Q)

Okay, this clearly wasn't a typo.

P-->Q implies ~ P v Q.  It does NOT imply P & Q, or any of the other things you've cited.

If what you say is true, then I should be able to derive Q from P using P & Q as the first premise:

 

(1) P-->Q

(2) P

(3) Q <1,2; MP>

 

But I cannot.  Watch:
 

(1) P & Q

(2) P <1; Simplification>

(3) Q <1,2; ?????>


Q can only be freed by simplication from the first premise and there is absolutely no way to derive Q from the second premise.  So you clearly do not even understand the definition of conditional statements, let alone their ontological basis.

 

Furthermore, you gave contradictory definitions to P-->Q!  Watch:

(1) P & Q

(2) ~P & Q

(3) P <1;Simp>

(4) ~P <2; Simp>

(5) P & P <3,4; Conj>

 

So since you couldn't even get past that, there is no need to address the rest of what you've stated.

 

The expression

(P & Q) or ~(P & ~Q) or (~P & Q) or (~P & ~Q)

effectively defines 'P --> Q'.

It does imply the truth of the whole expression, IOW, that one of those terms must be true.

If P is true, (P & Q) will only be true if Q is true.

The 2nd term will be true if either P is false or Q is true. These first two terms state that if P is true, Q must be true.

Terms 3 and 4 affirm that if P is false, the expression will be true for Q being either true or false.

It is equivalent to a 'Truth Table', which is how all the various Logical operations are often defined, ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table

Logical implication
pqp -> q
TTT
TFF
FTT
FFT

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot derive the effect of P --> Q from any single term in that expression.

So the rest of your response is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of logic.

Quote:

 

Quote:
You are absolutely wrong about natural selection implying that "there is absolutely no correlation between that and actual knowledge". The reverse is the case.

How do you know?  You are just begging the question.

You could wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee and then turn on TV... and your chemistry could tell you that the cup of coffee caused the TV to go on.

Quote:
Natural selection implies that any knowledge relevant to survival and reproduction is far more likely to be correlated with truth than not. That is how it works.

That's just an assumption.  Just because something is more conducive to a particular purpose does not mean that it is true.  By that metric, we could justify all sorts of false beliefs. 

I didn't say that any more that that it IS 'more conducive to a particular purpose'. That is all we require to discuss the issues.

That makes it more likely to be true, that is all I am saying. 

If I observed at least once that not physically turning the TV on when I had a cup of coffee meant it didn't turn on, then my 'chemistry' would establish there was no connection.

It is your jumping from lack of perfect correlation to the assumption of no connection that is really stupid.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:You contended

Eloise wrote:

You contended that ~A wasn't a thing at all, that's what difference it makes. Don't try and move the goal posts.

No, I said it wasn't a thing in itself.  It's a term like University or Internet.  It does not refer to a thing, per se.  It refers to a conglomeration of many individual things. 

Quote:
You're dodging. Stop dodging.

I'm not dodging.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Quote:
That's because of the tautology : Bachelors <--> unmarried men.

So you are agreeing that there are propositions which are self-evident and require no reference to experience?

Quote:
The same does not apply to Uncountable <--> Exclusive .

"~(p & ~p)" is not self-evident but "p & p" is?

Quote:
Sorry, you can't justify the assertion ~A exists by tautology it's established by retorsive argument which is empirical, experiential, direct ..... natural.

By double negation, (1) A, (2):. ~(~A).  A = ~(~A).  Thus, the statement "A is not not-A" IS a tautology.

Quote:
It's not a "mysterious something", and it's not "out there" what the hell kind of hyperbolic deflection are you trying on?

It derives from simplest assumption of Monism - minds are made of the same stuff as the rest of universe. The "I" concept is basic to the nature of an "I" (henceforth referred to as Ego).

Are you saying that logic is reducible to physical operations?


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:No, I

Fortunate_Son wrote:
No, I said it wasn't a thing in itself.  It's a term like University or Internet.  It does not refer to a thing, per se.  It refers to a conglomeration of many individual things.

And the Internet exists.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I'm

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I'm asking you to tell me about these controversies.  No offense, but your assertions are not convincing.  How is logic violated in these instances and by what logic do you judge that logic is violated?

No, that's not right, you're trying to stonewall my argument and I'm not going to let you. It should be enough for you that reputable academics write them up as controversies.

I'm making a valid appeal to authority which should bypass the utter moratorium that arguing each case in point would become here. The point is that your "laws of logic" are called to a great number of questions, the premise that they are necessary is sufficiently challenged by that fact.

If you would like to discuss an example, my area of personal expertise is Schroedingers cat - these so called "laws" of logic are not at all necessary to objects in the quantum world - but I suspect you would want more to discuss Ex Contradictione Quodlibet since it's probably more your thing, right? 

I suggest we just agree that academia on the whole admits there are controversies in logic and leave it at that. What do you say? 


 

Quote:

Quote:
Conceptual containment is a dualistic assertion, there's no basis for believing that a concept is "contained" by a mind.

What?  Conceptual containment refers to a kind of relationship between terms and their descriptors, it has nothing to do with the relationship between mind and concepts.

Relationship between terms and descriptors? aren't they the same thing?



Quote:

Logic does not justify its methodology.  It does not need to. 

Deduction does not need to justify it's methodology, deduction is self evident. Logic on the whole, however, is not so clear cut. Science and logic both rely on the self evidence of deduction equally, you are mistaken to think that science overall has a weaker position than philosophy overall.

 


Quote:
Nature can account for their givenness, but it does not account for our understanding of them. 

Nature does account for our understanding of them, but you'll tend to discover this through science rather than purist propositional calculus.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Dualist mythicism. Empiricism isn't a metaphysical view,  it's the very nature of the existence that we know.

Yes it is.  Metaphysics (translated: "After the physics" ) refers to that which supersedes scientific investigation.  There is not a single scientist who has justified, using science, that all knowledge comes from empirical observation.  Empiricism is a faith-based metaphysical view.

It doesn't take "to justify all knowledge coming from empirical observation", only the simple acknowledgment that our existence is empirical, that we are physical interaction. But, again, you could assume that to be limiting metaphysic according to your dualist parlance, and you would only discover how not limiting it is through science and mathematical modelling, but not puritan philosophy.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com