Update

It appears that existence as a predicate results in a contradiction:

Sentential logic

1. Dogs exist = D

Categorical logic

D becomes,

2. All dogs are existent things = P

Sentential logic

3. Dogs don't exist = ~D

Categorical logic

~D becomes,

4. No dogs are existent things = Q

D and ~D are contradictories but P and Q are not contradictories (they're contraries). Contradiction because D = P and ~D = Q.

Let's refrain from making existence a predicate as below from using a universal claim to make an existential claim (only particular categorical statements have existential import)

Sentential logic

5. Dogs exist = D

Categorical logic

D becomes,

6. Some existent things are dogs = Some dogs are existent things = R

Sentential logic

7. Dogs don't exist = ~D

Categorical logic

~D becomes,

8. No existent things are dogs = No dogs are existent things = S

NOW,

D & ~D are contradictories and also R and S are contradictories.

As is patently clear, if existence is used as a predicate then it must be only in ways that the statement in question be amenable to conversion (E and I statements). In cases where this is not possible, existence can't be used as a predicate (A statement; please note, O statements seem to be ok).

I am not sure how useful St Anslem's arguments are for us because we live with such different perspectives of the world. I think that part of the problem which I see is that the idea of God is so complex because it can be seen from various angles ranging from the Christian and anthropomorphic pictures of a deity to much softer ones like the idea of the Tao. I am not saying that I don't think the question of God's existence, or lack of existence is important. However, it does depend on how we try to approach the idea of God, because the concept has so many varying connotations and associations. — Jack Cummins

:ok:

Good points. I suppose when someone claims God exists, he means to say so in the sense that, say, dogs exist (in the physical plane) and not in the same way as ideas exist (in the mental plane).

Is existence a property that can be ascribed to an object like mammalhood for example.

Mammalhood

1. Dogs are mammals = M = All dogs are mammals

The contradictory of M is,

2. Some dogs are not mammals = ~M

So far so good.

Existence

3. Dogs exist = D = All dogs are existent things

4. Dogs don't exist = ~D = No dogs exist = No dogs are existent things???

But, All dogs are existent things is not the contradictory of No dogs are existent things. They're contraries.

TheMadFool change the negation of universal with an existential. Then try to see if a logical equivalence is equal to a logical translation. — Caldwell

Sorry, I didn't quite get that.

Here's how I see the issue.

1. Apples exist (A) = All apples are existent things. (S)

2. Apples don't exist (~A) = No apples are existent things. (T)

A and ~A are contradictories but their corresponding equivalents, S and T are contraries.

It's not surprising. Epistemic autonomy is the holy grail for many people. — baker

Good that you brought that issue -epistemic autonomy - up; it (epistemic autonomy) is, to me, basically the idea that one must reserve one's belief only for those claims/theories that has oneself studied and thought through. Buddha was a staunch advocate.

It is interesting to see you putting the question of God's existence down to logical equations because recently I have been thinking it is a matter of semantics. My own recent thought has been that it comes down to how we name the underlying force behind existence, with some calling it 'God' and others preferring scientific frames of description. So, the underlying question may be how much the matter is about logic, language and causal explanations, and the complex mixture of these in our own descriptions and grasp for understanding and meaning. — Jack Cummins

Thanks to you and @baker for stressing on the God angle. I wonder if the issue I'm grappling with has anything to do with the ontological argument (St. Anselm Of Cabterbury)

Immanuel Kant's critique [of the ontological argument] was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate, arguing that "existing" adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being. — Wikipedia

Your examples — baker

I also wrote,

There seems to be a problem with existence as a predicate.

Sentential Logic

1. Apples exist = A
2. Apples don't exist = ~A

A is the contradictory of ~A

No issues.

Predicate Logic

where Px = x is an apple,

3. Apples exist = (Ex)(Px)
4. Apples don't exist = ~(Ex)(Px)

(Ex)(Px) is the contradictory of ~(Ex)(Px)

No problem here too.

Categorical Logic

5. Apples exist = All apples are existent things. = S
6. Apples don't exist = No apples are existent things. = T


The problem:

There's no conflict between the sentential logic and predicate logic translations: A, ~A and (Ex)(Px), ~(Ex)(Px) are contradictories.

However, in categorical logic, S and T aren't contradictories. They should be because they're translations of the same two contradictory statements [A and ~A or (Ex)(Px) and ~(Ex)(Px)]. Instead they're contraries.

What gives? — TheMadFool

And you think this is possible in a suprareligious, neutral, objective way? — baker

Why is that surprising?

But you're not trying to get that idea.
If you want to argue against Buddhist doctrine - fine. But for this, you first need to learn it. — baker

How do you know what I'm trying to do?

To what end? — baker

To understand the issue.

When you're talking about the existence of God, what I said applies. — baker

Not God, existence.

Do you want to talk about the God of actual religions, or the God of philosophers?

If the former, then your analysis doesn't apply, because God is defined as the unique being, and as such, incomparable to any other being. God doesn't exist the way tables and chairs do, or as humans do, nor can he be known the way tables and chair can be known, or the way Tom and Jane can be known.

If the latter -- then ask yourself why bother. — baker

Not god, existence. Is it a valid predicate.

Sentential logic

1. Apples exist

2. Apples don't exist

1 is the contradictorg of 2

Categorical logic

3. All apples are existent things. (translation of 1)

4. No apples are existent things (translation of 2)

3 and 4 are not contradictories, they're contraries.

Insisting on discussing Buddhist doctrine, while at the same time refusing to learn said Buddhist doctrine is the mark of a fool. — baker

Why? How is trying to get an idea of what it is that one's getting into "...the mark of a fool..."? How did the buddha discover buddhism and come to the conclusion that, yeah, this is it?

How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality.
— TheMadFool
Like you say:
Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion.
— TheMadFool — baker

I don't think I'm speculating. That's already done with. What I'm offering is a compromise of two opposing perspectives.

Learning the Buddhist doctrine. — baker

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

Nature is not far more complex than we are. Bigger yes, that She is. — Thunderballs

:ok:

Sometimes, people confuse merit with good luck. — baker

@Wayfarer

How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality. [@Jack Cummins (synchronicity/luck???)].

It's very much like saying there is altruism but altruism is just another way selfishness manifests in the world. :chin:

It can only be inferred — Yohan

Therein lies the rub. A true blue skeptic can haul in almost anything through that gap between truth and inference, one being doubts about consciousness itself (the problem of other minds).

Nature as a whole being far more complex than us, is likely to be more conscious than us? — Yohan

I don't quite buy that argument. Goldilocks zone? Consciousness might be a property of medium complexity and may not exist in either the less/more complex kinda like a downward-facing parabola (with consciousness on the y-axis and complexity on the x-axis).

I struggle to find a modern day equivalent for Plato's allegory of the cave? It seems it's necessary to come up
with one - to bridge the roughly 2000 year old gap between Plato's contemporaries who would be familiar with the experience of being in caves and a person from the 21st century whose probability of being inside one is minisucle.

Analogies, by definition, require a good degree of familiarity with the analog (the cave in this case) but that seems a rather tall order for people of this era, trapped as they are in mega-cities.

The best that I can do is to resort to higher dimensions - it seems appropriate as shadows are, bottom line, 2D figures - but the difficulty seems to be the mathematical concepts at play are beyond the reach of people even in this day and age of Einsteinian science. That's that!

My own personal opinion, not that it matters in any significant sense, is not to make the distinction real vs. illusion. A more helpful way of understanding our world is to simply look at reality like it's multi-tiered with each level being an aspect of reality just as the layer below/above is one, with each such stratum being no real/illusory as any other. In a sense, the people (prisoners?) in the cave are not being denied the truth; rather they're being presented with a different slice of the truth.

In short, illusion is an illusion. :chin:

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path?
— TheMadFool

Learning the Buddhist doctrine. — baker

How exactly?

:up: Now that I gave this some thought, I fully agree with you. The reason is this :point: fountain (Marcel Duchamp)



The artwork in this case went through the following process:

Porcelain urinal (before) (not art) -> Marcel Duchamp's consciousness -> Porcelain urinal (after) (art)

The only difference between the porcelain urinal (before) [not art] and the porcelain urinal (after) [art] is Marcel Duchamp's consciousness.

Can you imagine what power artist's wield? What's next? Shit art? I'm serious of course.

What's the big deal with growth. — Thunderballs

Simple answer: There are only a few economies that are at the top and a large number at the bottom. Those at the top need to stay ahead of the pack and those at the lower rungs have to play catch up - growth, it seems, is inevitable. This pattern is ubiquitous; take gang and drug wars - the traffickers buy powerful weapons, the police must do all it can to keep up - a vicious cycle of...er..."growth."

As for war, money is part of the so-called soft power package - buying influence and support in politics and even...in war.

Which red-blooded person doesn't want more money than fae already has? None! Economic growth where the sky's the limit is simply that sentiment manifested at a global scale.

Update

There seems to be a problem with existence as a predicate.

Sentential Logic

1. Apples exist = A
2. Apples don't exist = ~A

A is the contradictory of ~A

No issues.

Predicate Logic

where Px = x is an apple,

3. Apples exist = (Ex)(Px)
4. Apples don't exist = ~(Ex)(Px)

(Ex)(Px) is the contradictory of ~(Ex)(Px)

No problem here too.

Categorical Logic

5. Apples exist = All apples are existent things. = S
6. Apples don't exist = No apples are existent things. = T


The problem:

There's no conflict between the sentential logic and predicate logic translations: A, ~A and (Ex)(Px), ~(Ex)(Px) are contradictories.

However, in categorical logic, S and T aren't contradictories. They should be because they're translations of the same two contradictory statements [A and ~A or (Ex)(Px) and ~(Ex)(Px)]. Instead they're contraries.

What gives?

Thanks a ton for the links. They look interesting.

This might be relevant :point:

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

The point is for any proposition p, the positions that a person can take are:

1. p [it is]
2. ~p [it is not]
3. p & ~p [it is AND it is not]
4. ~(p v ~p) [neither it is nor it is not]

Nāgārjuna rejects (Nāgārjuna's tetralemma) all possible stances a person can adopt, referring to all four of them, perhaps derogatorily, as extremes and hence the middle path (mādhyamaka).

About a year or so ago, you made some posts that strongly reflected this idea of the middle path. Sorry, I can't quote them here because I can't remember the exact words, necessary for a successful search. It was very inspiring to see someone put to practice a buddhist principle that I find deeply meaningful.

Good day.

You're tangled in language. — tim wood

I thought as much. I needed someone to tell me that. :up:

This assuming existence is a legitimate predicate — tim wood

Methinks therein lies the rub.

Existence isn't a legitimate predicate. So, in predicate logic where Dx = x is God,

God exists = (Ex)(Dx)

God doesn't exist = ~(Ex)(Gx)

(Ex)(Gx) and ~(Ex)(Gx) are contradictories. Nothing to fret about.

---

Let me give you some background info. I was engaged in a discussion on the law of karma (buddhism) with some folk. I claimed that karma doesn't have room for chance in our lives and my interlocutor disagreed saying that there's an element of chance.

I tried to formulate a sentential/categorical logic statement for this situation. My attempt vide infra:

1. Everything is determined (karma) = D

Negating statement 1, as the person I was discussing this with did, we get (please note, this is where I think I get tangled in language),

2. Everything is not determined = ~D

Let's now, translate 1 and 2 in categorical logic

3. All things are determined things (from 1)

4. No things are determined things (from 2) ?! (chess notation: dubious move)

The negation of 2 isn't 4, it's actually

5. Some things are not determined.

There I cleared up my confusion. Thanks a million for your help. Much appreciated.

It's where you place the negation. It makes a difference from
1. G = God exist.
2. ~G = God doesn't exist — Caldwell

Thanks.

See karma doesn't explain everything. Note especially comment (2). — Wayfarer

Take the middle path.

Two positions:

1. Everything is determined (karma). No!
2. Not Everything is determined (chance factor). No!

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path?

3. From 1 (no!) , some things are not determined.
4. From 2 (no!) , everything is determined.

So,

5. Everything is determined (3) and some things are not determined (4) [contradiction]. No!

So,

6. Neither everything is determined nor some things are not determined. No!

I've applied Nagarjuna's tetralemma (supposedly the foundation of the middle path).

The burning question is, what is the proposition that is the middle path?

Categorical has added ingredients, the logic represented by the square of opposition. Take away ingredients and the square collapses to just contradictories.

This could be a lot longer and even more unclear, but I think if you look at the square and grok the collapse, you'll have got it. I'm betting on you! — tim wood

I'm afraid your confidence in me is misplaced.

I can say that,

Predicate logic

Where Dx = x is God,

9. G = God exists = Ex(Dx)
10. ~G = God doesn't exist = ~Ex(Dx)

Now, Ex(Dx) is the contradictory of ~Ex(Dx) just as in sentential logic G is the contradictory of ~G.

In categorical logic it's different:

5. God exists (G) = All things identical to God are existent things = A
6. God doesn't exist (~G) = No things identical to God are existent things = B

A and B are contraries and not contradictories.

:confused:

Something odd about the middle path. I can't quite put my finger on it though. :up:

This post is a bit sloppy, sorry.

1. Wittgenstein has issues with ostensive definitions but, personally, I don't find anything amiss with this often employed definitional technique. So, assume ostensive definitions are legit.

2. Private language argument: Suppose a private experience in the life of a private linguist W, a sensation to which you assign the word "S."

The question is, will W use the word "S" correctly all the time?

If W has a perfect 20/20 memory, W will definitely do so and we have a private language.

In real life memory isn't as reliable as it should be for W to recall the sensation S is assigned to the word "S." Sometimes W forgets. When this happens, W can either give up trying to remember either the word "S" (W experiences the sensation S but forgets "S") or the sensation (W recalls "S" but fails to link it to the sensation) in which case no private language.

The other option is to go with whatever sensation (has the word "S" but can't get a fix on the sensation) or whatever word (has the sensation but no word "S") that seems correct. However, there's a world of a difference between seems correct and actually correct. The end result - the word "S" is used incorrectly. In short, W's private language is incoherent.

To sum it all up:

a) A private language is possible for a person with eidetic memory given that ostensive definitions are given a clean bill of health.

b) In the real world, memory is unreliable. A private language is impossible.

Thanks for reminding me of what I read, actually skimmed through, a coupla days ago. Unfortunately, I'm unable to recall the source. The "shut up and calculate" remark, made by David Mermin, was meant to discourage people from trying to make sense of or comprehend quantum physics in the same way as one sussed out Newtonian mechanics for example. It was simply not possible for reasons which include the difficulty/impossibility of visualizing what the equations of QM were saying.

I guess this is the point where you say, like Wolfgang Pauli did after he went through a paper of a young physicist, "it is not even wrong!"

Food for thought:

Some things have no effect e.g. I push on a wall with all my strength (energy is consumed, force is applied) but the wall doesn't budge an inch, nothing, absolutely nothing, happens to the wall.

That means it's possible that some things are uncaused.

@Banno

Playing along with Prof. Gillian Russell's general idea,

The logical law of Logical Nihilism: All logical laws have exceptions (counterexamples). This is a logical law because, we can, by expanding the interpretation, demonstrate that all logical laws have counterexamples (exceptions).

Therefore,

All logical laws have exceptions (counterexamples) must itself have (an) exception(s).

Ergo,

Some logical laws have no counterexamples (exceptions). In other words there are universal logical laws.

Ergo, logical nihilism is untenable.

What say you?

Sure, and we should give the violist our kidneys for 9 months and the woman should under those circumstances *not* abort the baby. — AJJ

Flip-flop! Make up your mind!

Animism has always been the primary religion of mankind,still is but in an occluded way. — Ambrosia

How? Care to flesh that out for me? Thanks.

Some crafty animists made the gods/ancestors into one and then reified that "god" into an abstract concept or principle. But one that has effects. "The laws of nature".
The "grand theory of everything". — Ambrosia

Ok and there's got to be a good reason for doing that. What could it be?

Xenophones was a rascal and bullshitter. — Ambrosia

First natural theologian who found out about how we anthropomorphize god. Not nice!

Today they are called doctors,lawyers,politicians priests and the supreme fake monotheistic God is the "Laws of nature". — Ambrosia

You have a point. I always was intrigued by the fact that God's supposed to oversee our well-being (health, justice, and so on) and yet, we have hospitals and courts.

Well I probably am not in total agreement with Wittgenstein on this point, but it is actually very difficult to decipher exactly what he has said to be able to determine such agreement. And, the fact that his use of words can, and is, interpreted in many different ways, is evidence that there is no such thing as "the correct way" — Metaphysician Undercover

That implies, paradoxically, that neither did Wittgenstein know what he was talking about, nor is it true that the two of us can or should understand each other. Case closed!

So is leaving the violinist to their fate. So is allowing the abortion to take place. Some might take *those* as murder. — AJJ

Then, lockdowns should be mandated.

You learn that in social psychology. :nerd: — Wheatley

:ok:

You might also like:

Orator

Orator: Recorded in English c. 1374, with a meaning of "one who pleads or argues for a cause", from Anglo-French oratour, Old French orateur (14th century), Latin orator ("speaker"), from orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula"). — Wikipedia

The list features the likes of the good - Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (emancipation) - and also, the bad - Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini (fascism).

Animism is different from panpsychism.
Do keep up old boy — Ambrosia

:smile:

I just read that back on those days, according to Xenophanes of Colophon, there really was no difference between gods and humans. Thus, Xenophanes' monotheism.

This piece of information is still fresh in my mind (I came by it just an hour or so ago). What do you make of it?

Panpsychism — Ambrosia

All things are full of gods. — Thales (first philosopher, first scientist)

Are you, by any chance, saying Thales is wrong!?

:joke:

Yeah, and I feel bad for all those poor victim grad students who are assigned Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit as a reading project. — Wheatley

I know. Torture can take many forms. Intriguing no, how people don't seem to realize that they're inflicting pain on others? :point: Milgram Experiment (Stanley Milgram)

Also, :point: Dual Use Tech

In politics, diplomacy and export control, "dual-use" refers to technology that can be used for both peaceful and military aims. — Wikipedia

Somewhere in all that is the truth - anything is a weapon.

I guess the moral of the story is that anything can be used as weapon... — Wheatley

Unfortunately (for the victim) or fortunately (for the victim), looks like it.

I recall someone telling me quite a while ago that his father used to hit him with anything his pop could lay his hand's on.

It is a definition of art. When defining something you don't get a choice as to how it exists! :lol: — Pop

Yet, someone can present anything under the sun as art. What's the difference between letting anyone determine what art is and you defining art as anything you want?

It is irreducibly defined. It may not be what you would like to hear. No doubt you would prefer to hear the typical irrelevant and subjective drivel, but such is the nature of the beast. The definition can not be reduced any further, and any expansion of it is not a constant characteristic of art. What is left, is what always exists. — Pop

I like your definition because it's, as a philosopher might say, broad - it must necessarily be so since it must cover all the bases and art is notorious for its complex diversity.

However, in your attempt to ensure all art falls within your definition, you've sacrificed on detail, an important element in a definition. By your reasoning, everything humans do is art, all that we do being information on our consciousness. Are you willing to accept that letter written by an ordibary person is art and it is as artistic as an epistle penned by a great writer cum calligraphist? After all both are information on the artist's consciousness.

Of course the question is - “what is consciousness” ? — Pop

Well, you have it as part of your definition of art. So, back to you, what is consciousness?

There must be hundreds of definitions of art that I have read, but none are like this one, and when people speak of art, it is often a shambles because they understand it differently. — Pop

It, art as expression of consciousness, doesn't appear in the definition because experts deem it trivial and not because they didn't know.

As I said, you making consciousness the cornerstone of art is novel.