(~a -> ~b) is an assertion or inference against (a -> b) — Corvus

It is not, these two are not mutually contradictory. One translates to (a∨¬b) and the other to (¬a∨b). Both are true if a and b are true.

One of the ways it can be done is applying the contradictions to (a -> b), — Corvus

The contradiction to a→b is ¬(a→b), it is not ¬a→¬b.

One of the ways it can be done is applying the contradictions to (a -> b), and check if it is true or false with the reality. — Corvus

The contradiction to "I think therefore I am" is not "I don't think therefore I am not".

More BS

How do you know what I meant? — Corvus

Because it is obvious.

Please tell us what you said about it in summaries and points. — Corvus

No. Go post that picture of a logic book you were talking about. And also translate my phrase to propositional logic.

But why do you talk about the Bio, in the middle of talking about order and logic? — Corvus

Because your bio says something other than what you meant. If anything, it means something funny.

This is the first time I am reading you talking about it. — Corvus

Another case of selective amensia in this thread.

What do you think it means? — Corvus

I don't think it means anything. I know what it means. And it is not what you were thinking.

I think that's a fantastic example of implication to look at. — flannel jesus

I have tried that a thousand times already with "If it rains, the floor is wet". Banno also. It is pointless.

What do you mean? — Corvus

It means Google translate does not work properly.

"If red light, then drive away. R -> D" Obviously this is supposed to imply "R→D" means "if red light, drive away" (if... then is grammatically incorrect by the way), but it doesn't at all in this context like this. It is an order (in other languages, drive would be in the imperative mood) with a conditional, it is like "If I had gone earlier, I would have arrived on time" (in other languages, had would be in the subjunctive mood), it doesn't translate to R→D just because there is an "if".

If we are making a circuit that takes an input and translates to an output, and I am really forcing it here, where there is a photoreceptor and if it gets a 1 value, it makes the miniature car move (1). I can't know what Corvus means by "False" because he doesn't mean [sic] at all. I am assuming it means 0.
In this case, being that R→D is the same as (¬R∨D), and that ¬R→¬D is the same as (R∨¬D), red light then drive away is the case (1,1), which makes ¬R∨D (1), not red don't drive away is (0,0), so R∨¬D is also 1, aka not 0, aka not false as Corvus claims.

This made-up scenario he came up with is not even equivalent to his original nonsense. His original nonsense is an argument where the two premises are contradictory. His new nonsense is an "argument" where the conclusion denies the first premise because the conclusion does not follow from the premises at all. It is a fantasy he made up.

Again, he has no clue what he is talking about, ever. It is nonsense upon nonsense on an unwillingness to learn basic propositional logic. He is LARPing that he has read books on logic. Someone who cannot even understand that he can't deny the antecedent does not have the skill to even read a high school book on set theory — not an easy task by itself.

By the way, your bio does not mean what you think it means.

under construction

I'm not following what you say here. — Banno

It says the proof-path does not pre-exist our construction of it, "it" I am guessing here being the proof-path. The proof-path is the syntax we use. If the syntax we use is a FOL, it implies it (and its operators → ¬∀) is construed. That leads to the question how are they construed? I thought the connectives of FOL at least (except ¬) were taken as primitives based on the possible binary outcomes of an operation applied to two binary variables $p \otimes q$.

I, with my unending powers, welcome you to at the gates of heaven.

The wikipedia page on the Historicity of Jesus says — Brendan Golledge

Yeah, it is w*k*pedia. It is full of junk. The scholarly reality is different from a webpage that tries to pass the opinion of Christian theologians as "historical consensus".

BitconnEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEct :party:

Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made. — Banno

The positivists were right. Philosophy is nonsense. We should all learn coding instead.

When I asked you about the If Red Light then Drive logic for your agree or disagreement on it, you said it was order, not Logic — Corvus

Yes, "drive away if there is a red light" is an order (drive away) with a conditional (if there is), it has nothing to do with statements of the type p→q. It is a bad example. Choose another one.

How time works? — Corvus

You see, the number in the bottom left corner shows whether a message came up after or before.

you keep running away from the question with smoky gibberish — Corvus

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote.

Well, I was replying to your question if my newfound knowledge :zip: but from your reply I know what to take from it.

I have asked you first, but you never answered my question — Corvus

Wow, so on top of not having ever read Descartes and feeling the gaul to comment on it, on top of not knowing how to use logic, you also don't know how time works? If you scroll up, you will see I requested that you translate my phrase before you deflected with that "question" of yours.

Do you agree the orders must be expressed in sentences, and the sentences must have truth values to be effective as the orders? — Corvus

I don't care about your gibbersh. You said:

Any event which can be described in human language can be translated into the formal logic — Corvus

If that is true, translate "If you had been there, you would have seen that the fireworks went off at the same as the bell rang" to formal logic.

Is it a valid inference, on which we must all agree, or is it an intuition, a mere hunch or impression? — Banno

So, from the Principles and the Replies to the Objections, to put in this exact terms, if I understand what is meant by them, the fact through which we realise we exist is an impression¹. When we express the impression, it is an inference – an enthytema often—, this reference of course relies on intuitions².

1:

But when we notice that we are thinking things, there is a certain first notion, which is concluded from no syllogism; nor even when someone says, I think, therefore I am, or I exist, he deduces existence from thought by a syllogism, but recognizes it as a thing known in itself by the simple observation of the mind, as is evident from the fact that, if he deduced it by a syllogism, he must first have known this greater , everything that thinks is or exists; but surely rather he learns himself, from what he experiences with himself, that it cannot be as he thinks unless he exists. — Replies

2:

I was not denying that we must first know what is meant by thought, existence, certainty; again, we must know such things as that it is impossible for that which is thinking to be non-existent; but I thought it needless to enumerate these notions, for they are of the greatest simplicity, and by themselves they can give us no knowledge that anything exists — Principles

I am just telling you what is correct from the muddles that you folks have been spewing out — Corvus

No, you said any sentence can be put into logic. Put my sentence into logic.

Thought requires a thinker, an author of thought. But this relationship is not reciprocal: it is false that if “I exist, therefore I think”, as I can exist and not think (for example if I am in a very deep sleep or in a vegetative state). — https://duvida-metodica.blogspot.com/2009/04/objeccao-descartes-o-cogito-e-um.html

What would anyone gain translating what you are saying? — Corvus

Proving your absurd claim.

In his talk, Dr. Prado explained that the oft-quoted phrase, “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) was abandoned by Descartes for requiring a suppressed premise. Descartes revised the “Cogito” statement to the “Ego sum, ego existo” statement. — https://www.queensu.ca/alumnireview/articles/2016-05-03/ego-sum-ego-existo-descartes-divisive-legacy

Now, on a deeper read, I am not sure if I agree with ROBERT A. IMLAY's article on whether Descartes' argument really depends on a general principle or not. Despite the relentless frustration this thread has caused, I learned a lot about the details regarding Descartes philosophy.

By the way, when it comes to Descartes' argument as an inference, the Aristotelian concept of enthytema is interesting. But ultimately, it is a medidation, not an argument autistically put into a first-order logic, those that don't want to understand will not understand.

By the way, when it comes to Descartes' argument as an inference, the concept of enthytema is interesting. But ultimately, it is a medidation, not an argument autistically put into a first-order logic, those that don't want to understand will not understand.

I am not sure what you mean here — Corvus

Yes you do. You said every sentence can be translated to logic. Translate my sentence to logic.

You obviously are avoiding to answer for the question whether you agree or disagree with the example propositional logic shown calling it order — Corvus

Your example has nothing to do with propositional logic, having the word "then" in it does not make it so.

That is not my sentence translated to logic, I am afraid.

Well, I don't know what he is saying either because neither does he. P→Q is such that everytime there is P, there is Q; that is all it means. The usage of "then" for order is closer to the causal relationship that he confuses "therefore" for, but ultimately it is gibberish because "If it is red, drive" has nothing to do with logic, it is a simple English phrase.

My prediction is that you will not translate the sentence into logic.

The only basis for your claim, they are not, is because no scholar says D's argument is contradictory? — Corvus

The basis for my claim is that I have read Descartes and that is not his argument. If that were his argument, some scholar would have picked up that his argument is contradictory, but that never happened, because that is not his argument.

Your claims on D seem to be based on some type of religious beliefs rather than academic theories. — Corvus

That sucks. But I have read him, the scholarship around him, the objections to him. I recommend you at least watch a series of lectures on him, there are plenty of uni channels on Youtube, so at least you stop embarassing yourself.

Any event which can be described in human language can be translated into the formal logic. It is called propositional logic. — Corvus

Interesting, please translate the following into propositional logic:
"If you had been there, you would have seen that the fireworks went off at the same as the bell rang."

*Cue in valley girl accent*
I literally just did.
*Cue out*

No one said that the lived experience of Catholics or Southern Europeans is invalid — ToothyMaw

Maybe nobody has said it, but they often imply it:

The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known.
— javi2541997
Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? — Vera Mont

The same level of scrutinity is never raised against minorities of Anglo countries. Not that I care particularly about what they do, but it is a funny irony that I noticed, an irony which makes us doubt the judgement of people who say things such as: "Christianity had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the medieval massacres of the Jews, and the massacres of South American native innocents". All those items are related to the Catholic church, not the protestant, even though their host nations did bad stuff too. It seems like not a just investigation but the typical bias that we see coming from the people of certain societies.

but there is no evidence of a black legend perpetrated against, what? — ToothyMaw

Black legend does not just mean smear campaign. Black legend has a specific meaning, look it up.

People revere the Pope the world over, revered more so than MLK ever was — ToothyMaw

I don't know how that connects to my post, I didn't bring up reverence.

As for microaggressions or generational trauma - they are modern constructions that developed alongside an increasing desire to accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals — ToothyMaw

Yeah it is constructed aka made up, that is my point. It is not a real thing, but they pretend to undergo it because it gives them attention/benefits/privilege, and people believe them. But when a Spanish or even Russian person says that they are constantly misjudged and stereotyped in the press and movies and whatnot, people demand "evidence".

What do minorities and European nations have to do with each other? — ToothyMaw

Nothing, it is a comparison.

but they are reasonable and interesting inferences for the premises of cogito. — Corvus

They are not, which is why no scholar says Descartes' argument is contradictory.

I wonder if you read any Descartes at all yourself. — Corvus

On what basis do you have this wonder, since you have basically admitted that you didn't read him at all?

If red light, then drive away. — Corvus

That is an order, it has nothing to do with logic. It is not how A→B is used.

But he says in the Second Replies:

Cum autem advertimus nos esse res cogitantes, prima quaedam notio est, quae ex nullo syllogismo concluditur; neque etiam cum quis dicit, ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo, existentiam ex cogitatione per syllogismum deducit, sed tanquam rem per se notam simplici mentis intuitu agnoscit, ut patet ex eo quod, si eam per syllogismum deduceret, novisse prius debuisset istam majorem, illud omne, quod cogitat, est sive existit; atqui profecto ipsam potius discit, ex eo quod apud se experiatur, fieri non posse ut cogitet, nisi existat.

But when we notice that we are thinking things, there is a certain first notion, which is concluded from no syllogism; nor even when someone says, I think, therefore I am, or I exist, he deduces existence from thought by a syllogism, but recognizes it as a thing known in itself by the simple observation of the mind, as is evident from the fact that, if he deduced it by a syllogism, he must first have known this greater , everything that thinks is or exists; but surely rather he learns himself, from what he experiences with himself, that it cannot be as he thinks unless he exists.

About that:

And more generally it determines his [Descartes'] preference for demonstration by analysis which is supposed to reflect the order in which truths are actually discovered as opposed to demonstration by synthesis which he seems to identify with the axiomatic method, axioms being a proper sub-set of general principles.

Relevant for the matter of Descartes' argument being an inference:

From this same article https://www.jstor.org/stable/40694016 . The second half with Gassendi is much more interesting than the first about Russell.

It is notable how much scrutinity Descartes' philosophy has received.

I figured.

It is curious however that lived experience are not enough to accept the existence of the black legend or that there is slander against Catholics or South Europeans in general. However lived experience is more than enough to accept the existence of "microaggressions" or "generational trauma".

But it stops being curious when we realise that it is simply another example of that society's Gramscian reverance for their own minorities but contempt for many European nations.

It's totally understandable to go to the original French, but it really ought not to matter — flannel jesus

True.

and no one has set the inference out for us in a valid way. — Banno

:roll:

I wonder why you chose Korean specifically. But take a look at this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857740

People who share your bias with you will accept your opinion as evidence? No doubt. — Vera Mont

I didn't say that. Perhaps I should have included "though they may disagree," after the second comma.

If you accuse one person, you are expected to show evidence against that one particular person — Vera Mont

That is an acceptable demand, in court. But if I comment that elderly people drive poorly, people outside the internet will not demand studies on the matter, because they know my conclusion comes not from the authority of a peer-reviewed doctor but from my eyes.

Surely — ToothyMaw

Surely.

Or it could just be a coincidence that the native speakers here are pointing out thattherefore is being taken by Corvus as causal and chronological, when in fact this is not the case, AND this is real possibility for native speakers of Korean to take the word in those incorrect ways. — Bylaw

That is one of the many mistakes he has made. I fully address it here:

Anyway, Descartes did not know English, he never went to England, he did not write in English. He wrote in French and Latin. The statements are "je pense donc je suis" and "cogitō ergo sum".
The Larousse dictionary is clear:

1. Marque la conclusion d'un raisonnement, la conséquence d'une assertion ; en conséquence, par suite de quoi : J'ignore tout de la question, donc je me tais.
"Donc" marks a logical conclusion. Je suis is the conclusion of je pense.

Ergo means the same as donc, Gaffiot 2016:
2 ergō, (5) conj. de coordination, donc, ainsi donc, par conséquent : Enn. d. Cic. CM 10 ; Cic. Fin. 2, 34, etc. || [avec pléonasme] : ergo igitur Pl. Trin. 756 ; itaque ergo Ter. Eun. 317 ; Liv. 1, 25, 2 ; 3, 31, 5, etc. || [concl. logique] : Cic. Fin. 2, 97 ; 5, 24 ; Læl. 88, etc.; ergo etiam Cic. Nat. 3, 43 ; 3, 51 ; ergo adeo Cic. Leg. 2, 23, donc aussi, donc encore

You see then it marks conclusion too. From "cogitō" I can conclude that "sum". — Lionino

Which he replied:

Conclusion is always consequent of the premises. You never conclude something, then list premises afterwards — Corvus

Then:

And the conclusion of "I think" is "I am". — Lionino

To which there was no reply.

If we agree to infer that Descartes Cogito's premise was I doubt everything — Corvus

That is not the premise, that is where he starts his investigation.

I doubt everything. (P1)
But I don't doubt Thinking. (P2) — Corvus

The two premises are contradictory. Not that it matters, because Descartes never said anything like this. I can only recommend reading Descartes.

So you think of the Cogito as a poem, and are not convinced by it, but by the argument you find in it? — Banno

Descartes' arguments are a meditation. The meditation is expressed with words on a piece of paper. But it is not the words on a piece of paper — a poem —, put together validly with logical connectives in the form of English conjuctions, that prove my existence. It is when I exercise the meditation myself that I realise that I exist.

“Am thinking” says enough. — Fire Ologist

Indeed, Fire, he says in the beginning of the Second Meditation:

Wherefore I may lay this down as a Principle, that whenever this sentence I am, I exist, is spoken or thought of by Me, ’tis necessarily True.

And this article reaffirms it:

Finally, at the end of the paragraph he mentions the conclusion to be drawn when I think that I am something, namely, "I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it." Such a conclusion is in effect a gloss on Descartes' own use of "ergo" and once again reference to the mode of thought has appeared twice. — Descartes, Russell, Hintikka and the Self

It is, on the contrary, or so Descartes would have it, in thinking and the certainty about itself that it entails that I at the same time become fully conscious and by the same token certain of my own existence as opposed merely to acquiescing in it more or less automatically even when I seem to be calling it into question.

In a letter to Bourdin, Descartes instead puts it as "ego cogitans existo". It is not so much that we take "I think" and then conclude "I exist", but every thought gives the certainty of existence. Which is why Descartes says, as quoted by Banno, that it is almost as if he would stop existing if he stopped thinking.

My overall impression is that logic is not a strong point hereabouts. — Banno

There are not many strong points in this thread.

they do if they are by definition thinking things. That's rather the point — Banno

Which I acquisced and clarified before, you say so:

you went into great lengths about the difference between extended substance and cognitive substance, but having to invoke dualism to solve this issue counts against the whole enterprise — Banno

I would hardly say that was a great length, but the proof of one's own existence does not depend on dualism. The mind-body dualism simply clarifies under what conditions something would cease to exist when it is not thinking. If something inherently thinks, it would not be anymore if it stops thinking. If X is inherently red, X would cease to exist were it to stop being red, aka it would stop being.

In particular, the bit where you stop existing when you go to sleep. — Banno

If we define dreaming as thinking too — which is an assumption that "stop existing when you stop thinking" relies on —, we don't stop existing when we go to sleep. Even if it were, there is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Descartes is trying to show how we can come to know that we exist, which is a different matter of under what conditions we exist. That I know that «I am» is different from «what it is that I am». He explores this also in the beginning of the Second Meditation:

Let me ask therefore what I am, a thinking thing, but what is that?

You mistook me for some other folks in the thread. — Corvus

Guilty as charged ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you accuse someone, you're expected to provide evidence — Vera Mont

If evidence is given, you will go "but it is just one person!". And I am not predicting the future more than I am describing the past:

one random Christian guy fought against slavery a long time ago. — ToothyMaw

Then we will be required to provide a literature-review of a topic that does not even exist academically.

Unfortunately, there is no meta-analysis of the gym being full Tuesdays and Mondays. But whenever I go Mondays and Tuesdays, it is full. I know that, so I go other days, and I am not worried about proving it to people who don't even go to the gym but want facts and logic about my claims.

Not even that, but the ones who protected the indians in America, especially Brazil, against European slavery were jesuits and other Catholic orders. Many jesuits in fact run away into the rainforests with indians. Later, the Portuguese crown, to grant peace between colonisers and clergymen, established that indians could be enslaved only under conditions of guerra justa. The search for indian slaves was de facto forbidden.
Humanitarianism does not start ex nihilo in England demanding other countries to abolish slavery, like it is professed in mainstream "history", but with the Catholic Church.
But then one would protest that the jesuits protected the indians to convert them to Catholicism away from human sacrifice and cannibilism — how could they?! —, though I wager that is a more noble motive than trying to increase the number of consumers for your industrial economy — both of them end up with an increased quality of life for the targets anyway.

Christianity had the Crusades — alan1000

The Crusaders were exactly the defence against the Muslims invaders, Ummayad in Iberia and Seljuks in Anatolia. The Crusades were self-defense against Muslim aggressors.

Inb4: "but they sacked Constantinople after!"

Not the point.

the Spanish Inquisition — alan1000

That lasted several centuries, and didn't reduce to the stereotype of randomly burning people at stakes like you see in Hollywood movies with a mushed grey filter on. I am not going to lecture on its history because I am not able to do so, all I recommend to remediate the stereotype is to read a book on the subject, not by someone whose name is John, Billy, or Levin, but Pedro, Manuel or Martin. Not only that, but my greatest recommendation of all is to put your hands against your ears when protestants start lecturing on what is and is not Christianity.

and the massacres of South American native innocents — alan1000

So starting from modern Panama there weren't any massacres? Strange. I recommend figuring out how many continents there are in the world, then we can move on to whether the indigenous (natives were often white) were indeed always innocent.

All in all, more of the same when it comes to this topic. The difference between Muhammad's message and Jesus' message is clear and evident. That variations on each exist does not change that each has a very distinct core from the other.

Sure, something is doing the thinking — Banno

Unless I know it is me, I can't say it is thinking, as I only have access to my own thoughts, not anyone else's.

When we conclude that that thought isn't ours and we only have a memory of it, we can no longer conclude that anything exists, as that memory is no proof of anything thinking; if anything, it is proof that I exist, because I am remembering it, and remembering is thinking. — Lionino

why did you laugh at the suggestion from Corvus that you cease to exist when not thinking? — Banno

Because things don't cease to exist when they don't think. And his suggestion was based on denying the antecedent, which is bunk.