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

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

Sentence is the basic constituent of Logic. What do you think Logic is?

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.

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

Well, I don't know what he is saying either — Lionino

I'm just giving you a way to interpret it that leaves it as a logical implication still. It's of course a poor example anyway. Just giving him the benefit of the doubt

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

I am not sure what you mean here. You obviously are avoiding to answer for the question whether you agree or disagree with the example propositional logic shown calling it order, not logic.

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.

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 haven't seen anyone struggling to get out nor being pushed back in; I think you are confabulating.

It's unusual, but it's been seen before. What is unusual is that Corvus has been around for so long without being banned. There are maybe one or two others in his class.

One reaches a point where the only thing to do is laugh and walk away.

Thanks for attempting to explain this to @Metaphyzik.

The other missing bits for them are that p and q in p⊃q need neither be related nor true, and p⊃q might itself be false. Unlike p⊃p , which is always true, and p⊃~p, which is always false.

, you asked for an example of p⊃q. "That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas" is just that: with "There are green crows" for p and "There are no new ideas" for q. It is intended to show how hollow "p⊃q" is. Have a think on it.

It was a joke.

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.

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

What's the point of that? What would anyone gain translating what you are saying into logic?

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

You say it is order, not logic. That is nonsense. Orders are expressed in sentences. The sentences must have truth values to be effective as law or order.

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

:up:

Proving your absurd claim. — Lionino

That doesn't prove anything at all. If you exist, you can think, or you don't have to think. It just means, in order for you think, prior to that, you must exist.

Sure. Certainty is often restricted to tautologies. And new ideas are extremely rare. Expression and learning and finding your way to navigate the channel are not.

However, as the pace of technology continues to increase, it seems inevitable that we are going to be getting actual new ideas at least at a glaciers pace

Proving your absurd claim. — Lionino

I am just telling you what is correct from the muddles that you folks have been spewing out. I am not trying to get out from anything like some of the senseless folks here try to make out.

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.

Not all my replies are intended for you. Sometimes the questions and issues raised are rhetorical, or intended for a particular individual in a way that might give them pause in their approach.

I'm sure you do the same thing. Talking to multiple folk requires talking at different levels, or at least placing differing emphasis.

You are at pains to defend Descartes against my probing, but there is no need. I respect his system, and have enough of a grasp of it to see it's consistency. But there are problems with it, as I am sure you would acknowledge.

I seem to be the only one referring back to the topic. My position, again, speaking broadly, is that anything can be brought into doubt; and hence the notion of being "100% certain" is fraught. But also, not everything can be brought into doubt. And hence there are things of which we are certain. We are certain of those things for the purposes of the task at hand.

To that end I attempted to sow some doubt as to "I think therefore I am", by pointing out that it is difficult to give an account of it as an inference. To some extent that has been a success.

I'm not at present aware of a part of this discussion where you and I are at great odds.

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

You must be joking telling anyone putting your sentence into logic. Are you Descartes?

I am not trying to get out from anything like some of the senseless folks try to make out here. — Corvus

You never posted those pages from your textbook, so...

I'm not sure you got the point, which had nothing to do with new ideas.

Here's another p⊃q: "If the milk is sour, then your bank account is empty".

Or "The first letter of the alphabet is 7, so Fred is a zebra".

Don't feed the troll?

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

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

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

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.

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. — Lionino

I have asked you first, but you never answered my question. Is this the way you evade the question which will collapse all your points?

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

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

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.