1. if bag of turnips is wife, then if wife go market, necessarily bag of turnips go market
2. If wife go market, bag of turnips not necessarily go market — Bartricks
If the bag or turnips and your wife are one and the same, then if your wife went to market necessarily the bag of turnips did. — Bartricks
I think the problem with you lot is that you in your minds - but not in my posts - you are confusing moral values with things such as moral judgements, or moral evaluations. But, like I say, that's what you're doing, not what I'm doing. — Bartricks
As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww
1. If Bartricks Potter is Superman, then if Superman went to the grocery, necessarily Bartricks Potter went to the grocery — Bartricks
...to be defined is to be conceived, which is always the primary ground for some immediate and subsequent mediate cognizant ability... — Mww
And being defined/conceived...
What does that take? — creativesoul
...self-consciousness and a rational methodology. — Mww
So prior to our first cognition... we need definitions, self-awareness, and a rational methodology.
Does that sound right to you?
Seems quite evidently wrong to me. — creativesoul
As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww
If definitions are required for cognizant ability... He couldn't possibly be doing the same thing. — creativesoul
No, second premise is gibberish. — Bartricks
Are you claiming I am wrong? — Bartricks
You have been stating that this is logically sound because the sentences map to this logic:1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable
3. Therefore moral values are not my values. — Bartricks
However, as many people have demonstrated, this mapping is clearly incomplete since both P & Q have embedded logic. E.g., at an absolute bare minimum we need to start by splitting out P into A = B. In fact it’s a lot more complicated than that.1. if P then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P — Bartricks
I did a quick run through of this, and while I am far from an expert in these things, it looks sound to me. @Happenstance then demonstrated that this is invalid for various reasons. He then asked you to map your sentences into first order predicate logic.∀ = for all, ∃ = there exists a least one.
Predicate V = value, M = moral.
Variables x = not y nor z, y = person(implied by I or my), z = something,
Necessarily = ∆.
∀x∃y∃z[
1. (Vx&Mx→Vy)→ ( ∆(Vyz)→Vx&Mx)
2. Vyz→¬∆(Vx&Mx)
3. Vx&Mx→¬Vy
] — Happenstance
not sophisticated enough to do that — Bartricks
The truth of #2, and thus the soundness of the entire argument, depends upon the (unstated) assumption that Superman's identity is contingent. Someone who insists that I am Superman can simply deny #2, since it then follows from #1 that if Superman is in the grocery, necessarily I am in the grocery.1. If superman is me, then if superman is in the grocery, necessarily I am in the grocery
2. If superman is in the grocery then I am not necessarily in the grocery
3. Therefore, superman is not me. — Bartricks
Likewise, the truth of #2, and thus the soundness of the entire argument, depends upon the (unstated) assumption that moral values are contingent. Someone who insists that moral values are my values can simply deny #2, since it then follows from #1 that if I value something, necessarily it is morally valuable.1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable
3. Therefore moral values are not my values. — Bartricks
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.