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.

It might be ahistorical of me, but I'm going to read someone who believes women's natures are "devotion" and "submission" as a sexist. Regardless of why K believes it. — fdrake

It sounds a contradiction. Another contradiction with K. is his emphasis on human relationship with God. From what I read about existentialism, the existentialist don't believe in God. Most of them seem to reject God. They would rather believe in Freedom of individuals, absurdity and isolation. If that is the major character of existentialism, then K. seem to had been an anti-existentialist or different type of existentialist.

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't. — Truth Seeker

But what could anyone do about the determinants and constraints?

I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at
I can prove it
— flannel jesus — Banno

Fair enough. I got email from the forum that you quoted me in your post, and I also read in your post you saying my logic is wrong in somewhere. So I was trying to clarify on that point.

There are so many ways to reason about the Cogito statement to prove. You apply several assertions and inferences to the statement to prove. Some will be valid and some invalid. But what we were trying to prove was not validity here. We were trying to prove the statement is true or false, sound or unsound.

You are back in my To-Ignore list. Bye~

I will speak to Banno when he comes back with his replies. But I don't speak to the folks who throws the out of context muck vulgarity in the discussions. All the best.

Just talk to Banno. I will leave you to it.

You are back to your old habit of throwing the muck vulgarity again here instead of seeing the point.

You seem to have read something about MP on the internet and been parroting about it here until cows come home. You don't seem to know how to apply logic in the real life situations.

Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. — flannel jesus

Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.