Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced. — Philosophim
Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced.
— Philosophim
What do you mean "introduced"?
Are you saying there is a second round of axiomatic systems where we introduce more axioms? — Treatid
Since I've seen you understand and use effective arguments, this non-statement tells me that your prejudices have come up against a set of facts that don't fit. In a panic, you are re-iterating your prejudices rather than forming an argument which would require examining those prejudices against the new evidence; a process that you can already see will be deeply uncomfortable for your prejudices. — Treatid
Since Axiomatic Mathematics has been hoisted by its own petard in the form of The Principle of Explosion; — Treatid
This story about mimicry has one particular feature I'd like to underline: Logic isn't necessary. — Treatid
If you've ever met an accountant, or worse, an economist you will know that they confidently perform the prescribed tasks with little comprehension of the tools and processes. — Treatid
Networks of relationships do not contradict each other simply through the nature of their shape. — Treatid
If you abstract away your existence there is nothing left. — Treatid
Among these relationships is the relationship between your existence and everything you do and experience.
If you try to sever this relationship, you cease to exist. — Treatid
Logic does not require a full understanding of the underlying process. Assume A. If A is true... is all you need. We're not asking where A came from. The structure of A, its history, etc. We're assuming A exists. In this instance, "A program called Excel exists with these functions. If I use function B, I get output C." While one could operate Excel at an extremely basic level by someone giving them formulas and telling them to just plug the same numbers in again and again, logically they know using a different formula will lead to an unknown result. Our use of logic does not need to build Mt Olympus, sometimes its used to build a card board box house. — Philosophim
The problem with formal logic, or I should say its limitation, is that it ignores changes in contextual sense. — Joshs
The more important limitation is that, while we build our computers to calculate by logical symbol manipulation, this doesn’t mean that this is the fundamental or most useful way that we think. — Joshs
No, that's just a poor use of logic. A good use of logic would be to include all the variables involved, and that includes the particular context. As a very basic example, we can say the context of whether its raining or not today — Philosophim
Searle is arguing that two indistinguishable perceptions are distinct becuase... he says so?} — Treatid
When I talk about change in context, I dont mean going from ‘its raining’ to ‘its not raining’, I mean going from subject to predicate and back to subject again. in a logical
proposition. — Joshs
Again, there is nothing in logic that does not let you do this. Logic is a tool. You can be meticulous with it, or generic. Noting that people are not very meticulous in their logic does not mean the tool can't be meticulous. I understand your point, because many people do not use logic in such a way. But it doesn't mean it can't. — Philosophim
“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement. All "proof" presupposes that the one who understands-as he comes, via representation, before the content of a proposition remains unchanged as he enacts the interconnection of representations for the sake of proof. And only the "result" of the deduced proof can demand a changed way of representing or rather a representing of what was unnoticed up until now. By contrast, in philosophical knowing a transformation of the man who understands takes place with the very first step.
“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement.
logic. — Philosophim
You can, however, analyse the conditions under which they occur, which are different. Hence their possible distinguishability by analysis. — jkop
These can be boiled down to stillness and motion. The stillness of objects is sustained against the motion of relationships. Motion is as ubiquitous as the stillness it moves against and neither objects nor stillness nor relationships nor motion is first, or last, or the essence, or the true being. Because they are all at once in the paradox, which is the being, the substance, the related ones. — Fire Ologist
This illusion is only here in distinction from some other that (which other can be an illusion as well, or anything, as in comparison to “this” particular illusion, the other need only be a “that”.) — Fire Ologist
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
First Order Logic is not the same thing as you are talking about. — Treatid
I've presented arguments relating specifically to the mathematical specification of Logic. Your counter has been to make statements regarding something that has nothing to do with First Order Logic. — Treatid
It isn't that what you are saying is necessarily wrong. It is that it doesn't apply to the specific mathematical artefact that is Formal Logic. — Treatid
You assert that there exists some difference between hallucination and reality that can be analysed to show the difference between the two.
I don't see why this difference must exist. I can see that it might exist. But as an a priori for a philosophical position I am deeply sceptical. — Treatid
If I understand what you're saying, I agree. I once sat down and asked myself, "If this is correct, what would knowing the truth be?" I realized the only way to know truth, which is what is real, would be to have observed and experienced something from all possible perspectives and viewpoints, and an understanding of all conclusions which did not contradict themselves (as well possibly the ones that do!). — Philosophim
The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid
My fight with you regarding logic has been entirely based around demolition of a specific mechanism that you don't even subscribe to.
Your empirical (observation) based sense of logic is far more rational than formal logic. It correlates well with the principles of science (excluding mathematics). — Treatid
A statement with no context has no inherent meaning.
The better the context is defined, the better the meaning is defined.
The better any given context is defined, the better every other context is defined.
Virtuous Circle
The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid
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.