That whole line was just gaslighting.
— Bylaw
Sure, it just shows your whole mental operations and judgements are based on your volatile emotions and wild imaginations rather than facts and reasons.
— Corvus
Just more gaslighting. — wonderer1
No, but it is perhaps an instructive hour. — Leontiskos
Descartes was saying given that I am thinking this presumes I am. I could not think if I did not exist. It is part and part with ANY COGNITIVE ACTIVITY at all or any action on my part. — Bylaw
Do you condone dishonesty — Corvus
Inductive reasoning looks like this:
Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine. — flannel jesus
Inductive reasoning does not look like
a -> b
~a
therefore
~b — flannel jesus
and viewed as a meditation or exploration it's very interesting. I'm certainly not critical of Corvus' behavior because he's skeptical about the cogito. I'm skeptical about the cogito. Though I'm not skeptical because denying the antecedent shows there's a problem or some of his jumping from deduction to induction and pretending he was using induction all along. I think the problem with the cogito is that it allows for an assumption, at least potenially of the 'I'. But this has been said by others and in greater detail. But I don't think that makes it useless or simply wrong. Someone needed to do what he did and it's easy to post-Descartes take shots at it.There is not much helping people who don't want to understand. Descartes invited us in meditation by writing His. — Lionino
I think this is often true. Being unconvinced is safer ground than mounting arguments that demonstrate one's skepticism is correct. There's a lot of fruit of the poison tree in philosophy forums.Those who do that however, are not willing to face the consequences of their unbounded skepticism. Either they do so, or accept Descartes argument. But they want to have the cake and eat it. — Lionino
So why did you do that? Why did you group the wrong parts of my post together, in order to criticise me for something I didn't say? Why are you dishonest? — flannel jesus
I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic. — Corvus
You misquoted him, and then you referred to this misquote as what led to your discovery he didn't understand. This was pointed out to you, and you seem to have opted not to actually check this. You seem emotionally volatile, but I do think you have the right to say what you feel is correct, even when you are this obviously confused or disingenuous.I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic — Corvus
If A is false, it is entirely possible for B to be true; — Bob Ross
You don't have any kind of instinct or intuition for what logic actually looks like, how logic actually works. You said you'd go back and read one of your logic books - I think you'd really benefit from that. — flannel jesus
Ah, ok. For many people when they make a claim about another person, it actually matters to them if it was correct. It seems from what you write here, that you don't really care if what you said about Flannel Jesus was correct. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. People sometimes misquote. Which is, of course, true. Some who misquote and have this pointed out and have said negative things about someone based on that, think it is polite to see if that is the case, and perhaps retract what they said based on the misquote. Others don't care about such things.Maybe I did, or maybe I didn't. — Corvus
That's a good thing to wonder about. I notice that for the second time you have referred to this instance as a pattern. That I do this with others' sayings. I did it with two things you said. I reassured you that my being critical of what you are doing here does not mean I think you can't write what you feel. Obviously, given your reaction it makes sense to specifically address your concern in your words. As far as the emotional volatility accusation you made It was not a saying, it was a judgment and not in the form of a saying. My aiming it back at you was to show how easy it is to claim that someone is being emotionally volatile. Rather than, for example, deal with some of the factual issues in that post. But, of course, you are free to ignore anything troublesome, just as you are free to not check to see if you misquoted Flannel Jesus. You're free to never show the logic book that showed your deductions were correct. You're free to claim you were always doing induction, despite the obvious deduction symbols you used. You're free to make up things about Flannel Jesus and me. You're free to do all sorts of things and I would defend your right to keep posting here, if the subject ever came up. If you want to move forward, well obviously you are free to move forward, whatever it says about your character.Just wondering what your point is keep repeating the others' sayings word by word. — Corvus
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.