seems like you're agreeing with me that they're substantially different enough for a depressed person to want that. Which is good, I think you're right, there are different enough for that.

Do you think the kind of emptiness in depression is really that comparable to the emptiness of meditation? They feel like entirely different things to me. I'd wager most people suffering from the emptiness of depression WISH they could have the emptiness of meditation.

I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic. — Corvus

I do, lmao. You spent pages telling me I can find that modus ponens allows for denying the Antecedent in any basic logic book - you obviously thought that was a valid step in deductive reasoning. That's what basic logic books about symbolic logic are about - deductive reasoning.

You literally used the word "deduce". You criticise other people for being dishonest, but I can't see an ounce of honesty from you. The argument you provided is not an inductive argument. You said inductive arguments are about evidence from observations - not a word of the argument in question was about evidence or observations.

You don't have any kind of instinct or intuition for what logic actually looks like, how logic actually works. You said you'd go back and read one of your logic books - I think you'd really benefit from that.

My messages to you said I want you involved in the conversation so that we could get to the bottom of our disagreement. The argument you produced was based on a Fallacy, called Denying the Antecedent. You acknowledged the Fallacy, which means you helped me get to the bottom of our disagreement. That's exactly the help I wanted.

You haven't shown the least bit of competency in logic. I'm sure I have a lot to learn about logic, but not from you. If I ask someone to teach me stuff about logic, they'll have to know what "therefore" means as a bare minimum.

it's my business that you misquote me dishonestly. Why wouldn't that be my business?

I asked for your help to learn about logic? Are you sure that's what I said?

How did you hide part of your post behind that lil extendable clickable button? That's cool, I tried to put a <spoiler> on a post before but it didn't work.

Do you condone dishonesty — Corvus

You clearly do. Look at this post by you.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894247

You chose to group the quote like that, instead of how it should obviously be grouped in my original post

Inductive reasoning looks like this:

Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine. — flannel jesus

And then I said

Inductive reasoning does not look like

a -> b
~a
therefore
~b — flannel jesus

So why did you do that? Why did you group the wrong parts of my post together, in order to criticise me for something I didn't say? Why are you dishonest?

that we have no empirical observation on the statement — Corvus

Right, which makes it once again clear that it's not an inductive argument. How are you going to make an inductive argument with no reference to any empirical observations?

We don't even agree on the statements were deductive or inductive — Corvus

Right, we don't agree because you're just choosing not to understand things. You literally used the word 'deduce'. Of course we don't agree if you've just decided you're going to disagree - it's free to just contradict everything, it takes no effort to just say "that's wrong, that's wrong, that's wrong". But the word 'deduce' has a meaning, and your provided logic *clearly* doesn't involve any induction.

Induction means that you come to logical conclusion via external empirical observations. — Corvus

That's right, which is why you calling that logic inductive reasoning just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Inductive reasoning looks like this:

Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine.

Inductive reasoning does not look like

a -> b
~a
therefore
~b

It's obviously fallacious deductively, but I haven't seen any good reason to think it's a good argument inductively either - or an inductive argument at all! Where's the induction? Where's the external empirical observation?

The first is a *piece* of a deductive argument - including one premise, and the conclusion - and the second is a premise that you could use, if you wished, in a deductive argument.

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist." — Corvus

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"?

I would have preferred you to end this thread more graciously. You could have said "Thank you, I understand now why that argument I made was fallacious". I don't know why you chose to start insulting me in this thread instead of just graciously acknowledging your error, learning from it, and moving on. You really brought the tone down. Completely unnecessary.

You've already agreed it was a fallacious argument. You were in that thread telling me that I should read your posts over and over again until I agree with you, and it turned out in the end that all of that deep, intense arrogance you had was spent telling me to read a Fallacy over and over again.

There's nothing that's unclear hear. You made a bad argument, you were cocky about it, you were a jerk about it when people told you they disagree with your argument, and now you've finally seen that you were wrong. You were a jerk, and you were wrong. There's not a whole lot more to say about it.

That's lovely bro, I'm really glad we could come to agree on this.

I said I wanted to resolve a disagreement we had about basic logic. We resolved it. You and I now both agree on this question of basic logic - denying the antecedent is invalid in basic deductive logic.

I don't know why you suddenly seem so hostile to me here, we've acccomplished the goal we set out to accomplish. I'm happy about it. Are you not?

I literally opened the thread with this line:

I would like to have a discussion with Corvus about if the logic used here is actually logical, or if it is perhaps fallacious.

I'm not hiding my intentions. I'm not being secretive. I've been very straight forward and transparent.

got it

They did not commit a logical fallacy like affirming the antecedent of a conditional premise. — Pierre-Normand

Is that a fallacy?

The only one I've been able to stand behind is that bi-conditional logic isn't relevant to real life, in most cases. — AmadeusD

I think I tentatively agree with that, sure.

The point is that if we could show that disparate phenomenal experience can arise from identical brain states, then this would defeat physicalism as currently thought about. — flannel jesus

Yes, that's absolutely the case! And absolutely not how it looked like it was being presented to me.

IF we lived in a world where Alice and Bob had the same brain states and processes, but were experiecing different things, THEN some aspect of experience is outside of physical brain states / processes. Sure.

We don't live in a world where we have proved the first part of that IF, so we cannot safely conclude the consequent is true.

This is not my utterance. — AmadeusD

Ah my mistake, it was in quotes. But you still ended your post with

It is not entailed that hte denial of one requires the denial of hte other. — AmadeusD

Do you still believe that? I believe those were your words.

denying one component does not automatically lead to the denial of the other component. This is because the truth values of P and Q are independent of each other in a biconditional statement, and denying one does not necessarily mean the denial of the other. — AmadeusD

I haven't checked the logic yet, but I'm pretty sure you're exactly incorrect about this. P <-> Q does not mean they're independent, it means they always have the same truth value. Denying one always means the denial of the other. Affirming one always means affirming the other. Happy to prove it if necessary - with truth tables, or just using basic Modus Tollens.

I do not see anything wrong with your passage being (rightly, a rehash of the quoted from M) totally sound. — AmadeusD

I do. You can prove just about ANYTHING like that. "Imagine we live in a world where <x is true>. This proves we live in a world where <x is true>."

It's not a generally agreeable form of argument in my estimation.

To me, it just seems like they're saying:

"Consider these people we've imagined, alice and bob. They have the same physical states, but experience different things. Imagining this thing proves that people who have the same physical states can experience different things."

I don't think a thought experiment like that actually proves anything.

Unfortunately I'm still not seeing what you apparently intend for me to see. The word "as" doesn't help me understand how the thought experiment isn't assuming the very thing it supposedly demonstrates

This is meant to show that qualia (the subjective feel of experiences) cannot be accounted for purely by physical/functional properties, as Alice and Bob's qualitative states differ while their physical states are identical by premise. — Matripsa

Seems like it assumes the thing it's meant to prove. Seems circular to me.

Anyway, I consider the thread resolved. Corvus sees that it's a Fallacy, he's agreed with Tim about the Truth table which illustrates that it's a Fallacy, so... thread resolved.

Well spotted Tim. — Corvus

But people have been telling you that for weeks already...

In deductive syllogism it is fallacy — Corvus

Oh wow, that's amazing that you're saying that.

In this post you call it a deduction - you use the word "deduces".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889798

So you were incorrect about that when you said that?

And then earlier in this thread you agreed with the following:

"So do you think any time you have (a implies b) , it's always true that (not a implies not b), you just don't always need to bring that up. Is that what you're saying?"

But since now you're saying it's a Fallacy, then the above quote that you agreed with can't be true.

but you haven't described any process that could happen.

Like, we know how it could happen with dominoes, because we can concretely set up that process - not for consciousness, but for some computations - so if you said to me, "if there was a sand storm of dominoes, maybe after millions of years eventually some sequence of those dominoes would line up to implement that process, and then actually run that process", I would know exactly what you mean - because I've seen it, in a video. And I would be like, yeah, that specific arrangement of dominoes could line up, and the process could run.

But I don't know what you mean when it comes to sand. How can you set up a logic gate with sand?

yes, but a series of dominos don't implement a process, like the process that can determine if a number is prime, unless they're set up in a specific way. So the question is, what way of setting up sand implements that process?

How would that look?

Here's my proof:

Let G be the claim that Goldbachs Conjecture is true.
Furthermore, we add as a premise that G is not proven, and also ~G is not proven.
Let P be the claim that an unproven truth is true.
G is true or it's not true
G v ~G (law of excluded middle)
G -> P (because G is unproven, if it's true, P must be true)
~G -> P (because ~G is unproven, if it's true, P must be true)
assume ~P
....... ~P implies ~G (by applying contraposition to G -> P)
....... ~G
....... ~P implies G (by applying contraposition to ~G -> P)
....... G
....... G ^ ~G is a contradiction, so we can conclude that
P



There's my proof that there's an unproven truth.

How about this: Goldbachs Conjecture

We've got two claims here: GC is true, or GC is false.

One of those two claims is an unproven truth. The other one is unproven and false.

so you won't be able to prove it if I can't name one?

what process do you think shifting sand is implementing that's conscious?

No, I don't think there are unprooven truths. — SpaceDweller

Can you prove it? Can you prove there aren't any?

oh well then, in principle... MAYBE

Though I'm partial to the idea that, rather than dominos being conscious, or a computer being conscious, or a brain made of neurons being conscious, what if it's the *process* that's conscious? The process is substrate independent, maybe THAT'S the thing that's conscious, and not the thing the process is implemented on.

I believe someone linked to process philosophy earlier in the thread.