I don't care about your gibbersh. You said: — Lionino
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
No, you said any sentence can be put into logic. Put my sentence into logic. — Lionino
No, you said any sentence can be put into logic. Put my sentence into logic — Lionino
Proving your absurd claim. — Lionino
Proving your absurd claim. — Lionino
What's the point of that? What would anyone gain translating what you are saying into logic?Yes you do. You said every sentence can be translated to logic. Translate my sentence to logic. — 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.Your example has nothing to do with propositional logic, having the word "then" in it does not make it so. — Lionino
That is not my sentence translated to logic, I am afraid. — Lionino
My prediction is that you will not translate the sentence into logic. — Lionino
The only basis for your claim, they are not, is because no scholar says D's argument is contradictory?They are not, which is why no scholar says Descartes' argument is contradictory. — Lionino
Your claims on D seem to be based on some type of religious beliefs rather than academic theories.On what basis do you have this wonder, since you have basically admitted that you didn't read him at all? — Lionino
Any event which can be described in human language can be translated into the formal logic. It is called propositional logic.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
↪Bylaw I figured. — Lionino
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
That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator. — Banno
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
It's not just my logic. — Banno
Are we now playing "posts last wins"? — Banno
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
from "If it thinks, then it exists" it does not follow that "If it does not think, it does not exist". — Banno
It seems not, but
Are You Not Entertained?
— Maximus, and Banno — 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.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
Of course everyone knows that.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
How is it tell you nothing?
— Corvus
Because (t→e) can be true and yet (¬t→¬e) either true or false. — Banno
(t→e) tells us nothing about (¬t→¬e). — Banno
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 here are we not talking about "I"? - "Cogito"? We are not talking about rocks and bricks here.There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think. — 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.But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t→e)→(¬t→¬e). — Banno
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
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
The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”? — Fire Ologist
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
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
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
I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at
I can prove it
— flannel jesus — Banno
Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. — flannel jesus