Of course, there can be situations where denying the antecedent can also be true. But if it is presented as a logical necessity, it doesn't hold. It's not enough. Throw in an if and only if, and it can work, but that's a different condition. — Bylaw
This makes sense, and seems to prove my logic was correct. — Corvus
OK, I was under the impression you were arguing with only the general rule. IOW using a general rule that shows the cogito is false. I don't think it's a good rule, for reasons/examples given by others. But here you say it is a different case. Well, then it doesn't like a rule is being used.Good point. I am not going to deny your point straight away. I wouldn't be that rude.
But it seems that you talking about again totally different case in your example. Why it is irrelevant, if you want know, then let me know. — Corvus
It says, P --> Q is equal to ¬P V Q. — Corvus
Yes, but your example and the other's examples are the case of categorical mistake. This is the problem with the symbolic classical logic. Because it uses variables instead of the real objects and cases in the world, they think they can use any irrelevant items and cases into the variables, which looks like the general rules doesn't make sense. That is why sometimes you must investigate the content in the propositions to see if they make sense.OK, I was under the impression you were arguing with only the general rule. IOW positing a general rule that generally is considered false and the examples I and others have given, I think show it's not a good rule. — Bylaw
I am no longer communicating with the folks who appear to be psychologically biased on this topic.And, hey, post a picture of the textbooks. If it's there, that will surprise people and might move things forward. — Bylaw
That's cool. :up:Oh, and this isn't because I buy or like the cogito. I actually don't. — Bylaw
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: So you are disagreeing with P Bogart, who you yourself quoted. That's crazy. — Lionino
IOW if I look at many of your posts it seems like you are saying the rule shows that it's false. But the moment you indicate that it works 'in this case' (but not in others), it seems to me, this is directly acknowledgement that it's not the rule. It's a specific situation or a specific condition, for example the 'if and only if case' special condition. — Bylaw
P Bogart is not a math god. He is just a math teacher. — Corvus
At Not P --> Not Q, if you were sensible, you would have inspected the content, which was FALSE.
Because it is FALSE the assumption, P->Q must be FALSE. You are guilty of the misuse of Logic. — Corvus
It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe. — Corvus
That's fine, but then both sides of the use of denying the antecedent here are arguing using symbolic logic. If we need to look at the individual case, then we can skip either use of the the rule (the symbolic logic) and just make the case focused on individual qualities and categories.Yes, but your example and the other's examples are the case of categorical mistake. This is the problem with the symbolic classical logic. Because it uses variables instead of the real objects and cases in the world, they think they can use any irrelevant items and cases into the variables, which looks like the general rules doesn't make sense. That is why sometimes you must investigate the content in the propositions to see if they make sense. — Corvus
Or, yes, one could do that.Having said that, I agree with your point, that this particular case would have done with more stringent conditionals on the premise and also the assumptions. — Corvus
It does matter what the Cogito is trying to demonstrate. I think 'experiencing is happening, something exists' is less troublesome, though it's almost redundant: what is before the comma is a paraphrase of what is after the comma.Cogito could have been not a statement that can be proved logically first place. Because it was never a logical statement. So, if we agree that Cogito is an epistemological issue, then it still is absurd to say Cogito necessitates existence. It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe. — Corvus
Descartes said "He thinks, therefore he is." What are you talking about?Cool, this exactly Descartes' argument, but put more poorly. — Lionino
I have been only trying to reply to your questions and posts.Thanks for wasting everybody's time. — Lionino
There are two kinds of programmers. One kind makes relatively simple programs. The other kind makes programs with bugs in them. I want to teach you to make programs with bugs in them. “
Aka: there are two types of certainty: the tautological kind, and the kind that has flaws. And it is better to have the kind that has flaws. — Metaphyzik
For example, I know that the English word "sky" is spelt "sky". — Truth Seeker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.