It means Google translate does not work properly. — Lionino

Why suddenly talk about the bio written in Latin? What do you think it means?

By the way, your bio does not mean what you think it means. — Lionino

What do you mean? Could you please explain on that point?

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote. — Lionino

Even if a sentence is order form, it can be formalised and executed in the logic.
If you read anything about mathematical logic, then you would have known that many of the computer programming languages operate on the instructions executed under the Boolean logic in the order form.

For example, if total order >= 10$, then offer FREE shipping.

Therefore, your claim that sentences in order form are not Logic is not correct.

Yes, "drive away if there is a red light" is an order (drive away) with a conditional (if there is), it has nothing to do with statements of the type p→q. It is a bad example. Choose another one. — Lionino

You have changed my original example back to front to make it sound like order. Please read my original example given to you again, and confirm.

The example sentence in the logical form is not order at all. It can be expressed different way for the same meaning, if you have linguistic problem understanding the sentence. For example,

If it is red light, then it is safe to drive.
If it is red light, then it is legal to drive.
If it is red light, then it is ok to drive. ... etc.

The argument is made up into the formal sentence form in the argument.

It is only an order, if some one tells you to your face, "When it is is red light, drive", or as you have changed it "Drive away, if there is a red light."

You see, the number in the bottom left corner shows whether a message came up after or before. — Lionino

I have been away all day, and just returned to see your message to me. I have no clue what you were talking about on how time works. But I will catch them up when I have some spare time.
You see I don't read any other posts apart from which are directed to me.

I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote. — Lionino

When I asked you about the If Red Light then Drive logic for your agree or disagreement on it, you said it was order, not Logic. It is a logic. It gave the impression that you were trying to avoid the answer.
That logic is a critical one. We will examine that tomorrow. I will try to read what you sent me in full in due course.

For some reason unknown to us, he is not able to take on new information. — Banno

Banno, we all know that you keep scanning other folks messages for sussing out the irrelevant grounds for your attacks. If you are honest, you will see and admit that I have never spoken to anyone with out of context vulgarities under any circumstances. I always kept my control in respecting others in the discussions.

There are a few of your cliques who have been throwing irrelevant out of context insults with the vulgar languages umpteen times. It just shows that they don't have basic respect for others, and disregard the manner of the discussions. But you never point out the problems of these folks because they are in your cliques.

With just this one evidence, your bizarre post is an unfair and untrue criticism of yours based on your psychological bias. I hope that you could realise the reality and be able to see the true situation.

woof, woof, growl. — Banno

Calm down Banno. This is The Philosophy Forum. :nerd:

Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made. — Banno

Seriously this is your problem Banno. You think you are a teacher, and the rest of the members are the students. But you have no knowledge of the field that you claim to be knowledgeable at. Your claims are full of misunderstandings. When it is pointed out, you get upset, and then you put out unfair and untrue ad hominem.

I tried to treat you with my best fairness and friendliness this time. But it is over the limit. Your insincerity, dishonest and pretensions are too obvious in your post. It is a regrettable affair to be honest.

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. — Lionino

Well, you keep running away from the question with smoky gibberish. How time works? Why do you suddenly want to know how time works? Please elaborate further.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

They are not, which is why no scholar says Descartes' argument is contradictory. — Lionino

The only basis for your claim, they are not, is because no scholar says D's argument is contradictory?

On what basis do you have this wonder, since you have basically admitted that you didn't read him at all? — Lionino

Your claims on D seem to be based on some type of religious beliefs rather than academic theories.

If red light, then drive away.
— Corvus

That is an order, it has nothing to do with logic. It is not how A→B is used. — Lionino

Any event which can be described in human language can be translated into the formal logic. It is called propositional logic.

Do you agree or disagree with this logic?

If red light, then drive away. R -> D
If not red light, then don't drive away. Not R -> Not D is False
Therefore If red light, then drive away. R -> D is False

↪Bylaw I figured. — Lionino

His wild imagination has no ground. Just someone said his native language is Korean doesn't prove that he is a Korean. His repeated meaningless citing on the point is very strange and irrelevant for the discussion. If you listen to him, and thinks it makes sense, it proves that you have no ability to reason.

That is not the premise, that is where he starts his investigation.

I doubt everything. (P1)
But I don't doubt Thinking. (P2)
— Corvus

The two premises are contradictory. Not that it matters, because Descartes never said anything like this. I can only recommend reading Descartes. — Lionino

Far more wild premises are made up and forwarded as some reasons why the contradiction reasoning is not the case by the other folks. Those are not said or written by Descartes, but they are reasonable and interesting inferences for the premises of cogito.

In logical arguments, premises are made up with reasonable inferences and assertions. Nothing like talking about hosing a garden, when the argument was about the rain and wet ground.

If Descartes had said or written about the basis for cogito, then no premises would be necessary. Because the only basis for cogito was his doubt on everything he perceived, the premises from the reasonable inferences were asserted in the post.

I wonder if you read any Descartes at all yourself.

You don't seem to know even the difference between validity and truth.

That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator. — Banno

The tree generator you keep brining in doesn't deal with applying the contradiction reasoning. It just generates trees and checks for validity. It cannot tell you a formula is true or false mate.

Any logic text you choose.

That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator.

(Edited - I assumed the wrong author) — Banno

Logic books? That's a poor logic of you again. If someone with poor logic or weird mind wrote some logic books and published (anyone can publish books by themselves via amazon these days), and if you happened to pick one up and read it, then you would believe in whatever is in the book.

You got to use your own loaf. Of course you read the books, but you must be able to apply the logic into the real life examples not parroting away what you read or seen.

I have thought this again, but it is clear what I say is correct. It is simple, but you don't see it for some reason.

(t -> e) -> (Not t -> Not e) This is via the contradiction reasoning.
This can be replaced with
T -> E
E = False
Therefore T = False

This is nothing to do with (t -> e) -> (Not t -> Not e) doesn't follow of your logic.
When you are applying the contradiction principle, it gets applied to both T and E.
Not just E or just T.

I am going out now, and will be back later. Would be interested in what you got to say about it.

It's not just my logic. — Banno

Who else is saying what you have been saying? Although, it doesn't matter how many folks are saying the same thing. Ultimately what matters is the truth. Later~

Are we now playing "posts last wins"? — Banno

No, that is not my game. You mistook me for some other folks in the thread.
I am just trying to understand your logic here. There are parts in your claims which is not crystal clear.
I will think over, and will return with my thoughts on your point. Enjoy your gardening. Cheers mate.

And from "If it rains, the ground will be wet" it does not follow that "If it does not rain, the ground will not be wet". I can hose the ground, and rocks exist without thinking. — Banno

Are you still claiming that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist is true? I am saying that is False.
Rocks existing without thinking is totally irrelevant. It doesn't rain, then the ground is not wet was given as an example to let you see, that Not t - > Not e is telling something, not nothing.

However, we are talking about Cogito (I think) here.

from "If it thinks, then it exists" it does not follow that "If it does not think, it does not exist". — Banno

It is not about follow. It is about introducing assertion and inference.

It seems not, but
Are You Not Entertained?
— Maximus, and Banno — Banno

I am. :nerd: Banno claims that he ceases to exist when he doesn't think. :rofl:

You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is difficult to back down when you make a mistake, even in the most friendly circumstances. — Banno

If that is how you see it, you are wrong. I am only interested in the philosophical discussions based on reasoning. Nothing else will interest me in this forum.

I don't care about some inauthentic time wasters throwing nonsensical abuse in the thread. I have decided to ignore them totally. I have not been battered by what appear to be nonsensical tantrums motivated by some of their psychological problems.

If I don't hose, and it doesn't rain, the ground will not be wet

But

If I hose, the ground will be wet.

All I did was remove "Hence". That's were you went astray. — Banno

Of course everyone knows that.
We are talking about the a logical progression started off from a specific premise in the argument.
It is about whether the conclusion is derived from the premises.

If you deny that and bring out some irrelevant argument, then there is nothing in the world which can be proven on the empirical issues.

If you hose your ground, so the ground will be wet.
But that is false, if the water gets dried out in few hours under the scorching sun.

I was under impression you would be good at logic and proofing, but taken back at your inability to understand even what simple logical proof process means. Bringing out some irrelevant premises into the argument to the conclusion drawn from the set premises and denying the validity of the proof is a sign of misunderstanding of the very basic foundational principle of the subject.

How is it tell you nothing?
— Corvus
Because (t→e) can be true and yet (¬t→¬e) either true or false. — Banno

(¬t→¬e) is definitely False in the Cogito case, which makes (t→e) False too.
No one with right mind would agree that, when he stops thinking, he ceases to exist.

(t→e) tells us nothing about (¬t→¬e). — Banno

How is it tell you nothing? It is a result from the principle of contradiction in proof process.

If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
Hence the ground is not wet.

How is it tell you nothing? They are the reasoning from contradiction.

If I think, then I exist.
If I don't think, then I don't exist. ???? False.
Hence If I think then I exist. Is False.

It’s not about the “I”. It’s not about the “therefore”. It’s about the “am” present in “think”. “Am thinking” says enough. — Fire Ologist

But if you cannot prove, or refuse to prove your claims of "Am thinking", it means nothing to anyone apart from to yourself. It would be like talking about your last night's dream.

There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think. — Banno

But here are we not talking about "I"? - "Cogito"? We are not talking about rocks and bricks here.

But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t→e)→(¬t→¬e). — Banno

Of course I deny its Truth. It is FALSE. That is one of the proofs (t→e) is FALSE. But there are so many other reasonings that can be applied which makes t->e is false.

If we agree to infer that Descartes Cogito's premise was I doubt everything. Then,

I doubt everything. (P1)
But I don't doubt Thinking. (P2)
Therefore I think, therefore I am (C)

Then Cogito becomes invalid.
Doubt is also type of thinking, which makes P2 false.

The core problem here is that, mental event Think cannot leap into 100% certainty of verified Truth of one's existence. They are different class in existence. Think is a mental event. Existence is a physical object.

I don't know what you are asking. Shouldn't that be (¬t→¬e) → F? Which is not valid, as shown by the countermodel. — Banno

If you don't think, you don't exist. Is this not False?
Even if you don' think, but you still do exist. No?

I gather (¬t→¬e) = F is to be understood as "(¬t→¬e) implies the false"?

No, it doesn't. Rocks don't think, but exist. — Banno

Therefore (¬t→¬e) = F ?

The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”? — Fire Ologist

Logical validity is only relevant, if Cogito had been deduced from some premises. But it hadn't.
The only premise of Cogito was Descartes has doubted everything (presumably).

The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”?

The point of the cogito, once you get the point, is that no analysis is needed; by analyzing anything further, you just make the point again. — Fire Ologist

But you see that even a simple logical formalisation and reasoning of Cogito, proves it is false.

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)
(¬t→¬e) = F
hence (t→e) = F

Would you agree on that?
Ignore the MP nonsense. It is not relevant here.