People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

And all of those operations are operations of the mind, therefore bounded by the rules of the mind, which we may call laws of thought. — Lionino

You just completely ignore the point, that I've made twice, now a third time:

In such mental states, people often break the laws of thought.

Definition of what? — TonesInDeepFreeze

The definition that precludes people "breaking laws of thought all the time".

And before another circle comes about, the fact of tautology has already been recognised in another post.

It's plain as day — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am not gonna repeat the same thing until we circle all the way back to what was being talked about in the fifth page. I am not amnesiac.

That is not even remotely constant (2) In this instance, I've been in exactly the right place about what was posts was quoted. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It doesn't happen in this thread only. By the way, you forgot to add that "[emphasis added]" is an addition of yours to my post. Typically one would leave from making such an addition to the body of text and simply state before the quotation "bold is mine".

So that is saying that laws of logic may only allude to or be based on laws of thought. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Correct interpretation.

the laws of thought require — TonesInDeepFreeze

I didn't say anything like that. Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind, they don't require anything, they establish in what ways we are allowed to think in and not allowed to think in. If we are able to reject this or that principle, that principle is definitionally not a law of thought. If we are not able to reject a principle, perhaps that principle represents a law of thought.

Your objection to "If ___, then ___" is a doozy! — TonesInDeepFreeze

It was never an "objection" because it was never a reply to anything. It is indeed syntactically incorrect, and I pointed it out in a standalone post without referring to anyone. You butted in because you wanted to.

In such mental states, people often break the laws of thought. — TonesInDeepFreeze

What laws of thought? You are not working under the definition that has been restated several times now.
In fact, how can someone violate a law of thought? Then it is not a law anymore but a suggestion or preference, innit?

You're replies don't even come close to a refutation. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Naturally the refuted wouldn't want to admit it.

In any case, the discussion around grammar is finished for me. If anyone wants to carry on, the following prerequesites are in place:

• knowledge of morphology at least at secondary-school level;
• knowledge of syntax at least at secondary-school level;
• knowledge of phonetics/phonology;
• knowledge of three or more languages at least at B2 level;
• at least surface knowledge of one classical language.

And by secondary I mean actual secondary, not Anglo-American high school. Scots does not qualify as a separate language from English, neither does Jamaican. Thanks.

I'm happy to read any definition you'd restate.

The refuted person may not be disposed to accept that he's been refuted. But it doesn't follow that if a person points out that he's not been refuted (and gives clear argument about that), then that person is doing that because he doesn't want to admit to having been refuted.

Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind — Lionino

Let's understand instead 'laws of thought' as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any mind. Since they are necessary, they cannot be broken. — Lionino

I should list "prerequisites" for talking about logic.

I would wish you did.

Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind — Lionino

And a fact about minds is that they are often irrational.

"People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely." is not a rebuttal anymore than it misses the point of the word 'operation'.

A law of thought is necessary for the mind no matter what it is doing, ironising, dreaming, thinking, or whatever. All of these have subjacent operations that are necessary to them.

Actually, easier just to list a three book course, which I've done several times in this forum.

And a fact about minds is that they are often irrational. — TonesInDeepFreeze

>completely ignores the actual definition right under that mere opening

.

I thought they were two different definitions. But the second includes additional assertions beyond what I would have thought is a definition. Also, I don't know what 'instead' refers to.

A law of thought is necessary for the mind no matter what it is doing, ironising, dreaming, thinking, or whatever. All of these have subjacent operations that are necessary to them. — Lionino

Whatever is "subjacent", in those mentioned mental states, the laws of thought are broken in the sense of irrational thinking, believing or imagining. If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought? If one dreams that one's great-grandfather is both alive and dead at the same time, one is not breaking the laws of thought?

No, I am saying he is a dimwit, which he is. — Lionino

No doubt, just not about English. From your failure to answer a couple of questions I infer you did not understand them or their significance. And your resort to invective and insult merely the droppings of a troll, as we who have been around for awhile have learned to recognize, sometimes the hard way.

Do you really not see a difference between, "If you do x I'll do y," and, "If you do x then I'll do y. Or the distinction between how chess pieces move and how they are to be moved?

And I observed above that I understood the purpose of logic to be to demonstrate, of language to communicate, the two being different - did you overlook that?

I'll try to combine your clauses into a defintion:

Laws of thought are facts about your mind such that those facts are necessary for the operation of the mind.

I don't know if that's what you mean, but it's my best guess.

Or maybe just say:

Laws of thought are the necessary mental conditions for the operation of the mind.

From that definition, it follows that they can't be broken.

/

So, when a person is utterly irrational, they are still obeying the laws of thought on account of the fact that there are mental conditions necessary for the operation of their mind?

He doesn't. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The public assessment of my skills in logic wasn't needed or requested.

If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't think any such experiences are possible.

If one dreams that one's great-grandfather is both alive and dead at the same time, one is not breaking the laws of thought? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't think that is possible either.

But, if it is the case that it is possible, definitionally there are no laws of thought that preclude from that happening, because it happened, therefore oen is not breaking laws of thought.

I didn't mention you skills. I mentioned your knowledge.

And you don't have to feel they that my view is needed nor do you have to request it for me to state it.

Meanwhile, you lashed out at another with your characterization of his knowledge of language. Same applies to you in your knowledge of logic. You've made hundreds and hundreds of posts about logic that are a dead end as your gravamen can be neatly summarized in a couple of sentences (as I did for you) without the pointless variations all on the same pointless theme.

Or maybe just say:

Laws of thought are the necessary mental conditions for the operation of the mind. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That is how I gave them some pages ago.

From that definition, it follows that they can't be broken. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Correct. We had this same conversation before.

So, when a person is utterly irrational, they are still obeying the laws of thought on account of the fact that there are mental conditions necessary for the operation of their mind? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Correct. Especially if by irrational you mean things of the sort of believing the colour green is sweet and that the moon is made of cheese.

You don't have to feel they are needed nor do you have to request them for me to state them. — TonesInDeepFreeze

But you should observe those requests or needs before people's courtesy runs out.

I don't require your courtesy. And I don't require you not to post so that you don't wear out my patience as you do. Anyway, in general, many people in this forum will be discourteous quite soon after they are disagreed with.

[EDIT: "courtesy" from a guy who makes a ridiculous argument against the common courtesy of noting that emphases were added to a quote.]

I don't require your courtesy. — TonesInDeepFreeze

So the conversation is over. I cannot take seriously someone who pretends to be a bully while simultaneously coming off as senile.

You can post or not post as you please. And I'll do the same.

I don't pretend to be a bully and I'm not one. And "senile" is to guffaw.

Meanwhile, no matter how you regard me as "coming off", I don't manufacture perceptions about you in that way. No matter how you "come off" to me, I regard the substance of your posts, good or bad, on their own terms, not personally.

If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought?
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't think any such experiences are possible. — Lionino

Of course they're possible. Whether in absurdist day dreaming, insanity, dreaming or in mystic state, one can have all kinds of irrational thoughts and dispositions. Even in everyday experience, people often drift to sleep with disconnected nonsensical ideas and irrationality.

But, if it is the case that it is possible, definitionally there are no laws of thought that preclude from that happening, because it happened, therefore oen is not breaking laws of thought. — Lionino

Yes, and therefore "laws of thought" pretty much reduces to simply "conditions necessary for mentation". If whatever one thinks, no matter how irrational, is not breaking the laws of thought, then the notion of 'laws of thought' is so general that it is hardly worth mentioning. That suggests putting some more meat on the bones of your definition.

if by irrational you mean things of the sort of believing the colour green is sweet and that the moon is made of cheese. — Lionino

Synesthesia does occur. And people have all kinds of false beliefs not derived by good inferences. But beyond those, people also have even more profoundly alternative states.

coming off as senile. — Lionino

"senile" is to guffaw. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I should not have honored that garbage even by laughing at it.

"senile" is juvenile. Worse, it's pernicious. One would think that such crude ageism wouldn't get into public past the lips of a putatively aware poster. People have mental difficulties for many different reasons. It's not a matter of age, but of the difficulties no matter their cause. Meanwhile, bigoted ridicule of people for their age is obnoxious and disgusting. Also pretty bad is to compound that bigotry by making it a term of general insult against targets whose age is not even known and not relevant no matter what it is.

Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:smirk: