A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I'm trying (very successfully, I think) to discount you as any kind of expert in logic, science, physics, mathematics, philosophy, debate, and spelling.bye🎵 wrote:
If we a sack of protoplasm then nothing you say matters to anyone not even yourself. So why are you trying so hard to prove your opinon?We don't need the laws of logic here any more than Robert's Rules of Order.
There is no need to add arbitrary, dated, and inaccurate "laws" to our discussion. Modern discourse does not rely on it. Go join Mensa and fit right in. This is turfwars.
I yield the balance of my time, you bloated sack of protoplasm.
I know you are very excited about what your teacher told you, but don't come in here trying to school us. Some of us are educated, have advanced degrees, and make hobbies of exposing posers of intellect.
-
That's a fallacy of misrepresentation, because I've never made such a claim. Why can't I make the same claim about you? Because I'm not looking forward to putting words in your mouth. You are no expert. Contrdictions are ok in your worldveiw so you should have no objections to anything I say. It's painfully simple. And remember, to have any "disagreement" or "truth claim" you undergo all the laws of logic. If they can not exist neither can your opinon nor your "disagreement" can stand with any validity.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Fallacy of accident, irrelevant conclusion, affirming the consequent, same team fallacy...That's a fallacy of misrepresentation, because I've never made such a claim. Why can't I make the same claim about you? Because I'm not looking forward to putting words in your mouth. You are no expert. Contrdictions are ok in your worldveiw so you should have no objections to anything I say. It's painfully simple. And remember, to have any "disagreement" or "truth claim" you undergo all the laws of logic. If they can not exist neither can your opinon nor your "disagreement" can stand with any validity.
It seems you are an expert of committing logical fallacies in rapid succession!
-
Let me give you an example, since you have no idea what I'm talking about.
"contradictions are ok in your worldview so you should have no objections to anything I say."
Fallacy of accident. Because I can accept contradictions, I must accept all arguments that are contradictions. False.
-
Fallacy of misrepresentation is the "straw man" fallacy.
I think we can all agree that moderating a thread with the intent of teaching logic soundly implies you think you are an expert in the subject.
-
No you assume that. That isn't the case since no statement was made.
Before I start off labeling off on your fallacies, I remembered. Fallacies don't exist in your worldveiw, because in order to know fallacies you have to know absolute truth statements that require the laws of logic. Hmm seems that your hiding Mr Brown.
-
You said it yourself that we are too pathetically stupid to understand it all and here you are making absolute claims and pulling fallacies out a hat! Your proving my point over and over again.... The fallacy of accident is about irrlevance which is also missing the point.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Everyone.... Raise your hand if this dimwit has forced me to prove his own point, that I am illogical, a "lier", or otherwise wrong in any way.You said it yourself that we are too pathetically stupid to understand it all and here you are making absolute claims and pulling fallacies out a hat! Your proving my point over and over again.... The fallacy of accident is about irrlevance which is also missing the point.
-
I can moo. Can you?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Mr brown, to know anything as a "lie" or as "illogical you have to agree with the laws of logic which your in advocate of them to non existing.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Everyone.... Raise your hand if this dimwit has forced me to prove his own point, that I am illogical, a "lier", or otherwise wrong in any way.You said it yourself that we are too pathetically stupid to understand it all and here you are making absolute claims and pulling fallacies out a hat! Your proving my point over and over again.... The fallacy of accident is about irrlevance which is also missing the point.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Non-absolute and non-universal is not the same as non-existant. They do not exist without man... But here we are.bye🎵 wrote:
Mr brown, to know anything as a "lie" or as "illogical you have to agree with the laws of logic which your in advocate of them to non existing.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Everyone.... Raise your hand if this dimwit has forced me to prove his own point, that I am illogical, a "lier", or otherwise wrong in any way.You said it yourself that we are too pathetically stupid to understand it all and here you are making absolute claims and pulling fallacies out a hat! Your proving my point over and over again.... The fallacy of accident is about irrlevance which is also missing the point.
There is a time when you should know you are beaten.
-
Here's a thought that's interesting to me. Maybe you will find it interesting as well.
In Star Trek, each and every time a person is teleported, the machine kills the traveller, and creates a completely unrelated copy somewhere else. The copy has the same memories as the dead traveller, but we cannot escape the fact that the person was killed on the pad.
So what are we?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
So your saying that if we die out then these concepts stop being true? you commit intellectual suicide when you deny laws of logic that is followed when correcting me.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Non-absolute and non-universal is not the same as non-existant. They do not exist without man... But here we are.bye🎵 wrote:
Mr brown, to know anything as a "lie" or as "illogical you have to agree with the laws of logic which your in advocate of them to non existing.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Everyone.... Raise your hand if this dimwit has forced me to prove hYou said it yourself that we are too pathetically stupid to understand it all and here you are making absolute claims and pulling
There is a time when you should know you are beaten.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
According to you or to me?Here's a thought that's interesting to me. Maybe you will find it interesting as well.
In Star Trek, each and every time a person is teleported, the machine kills the traveller, and creates a completely unrelated copy somewhere else. The copy has the same memories as the dead traveller, but we cannot escape the fact that the person was killed on the pad.
So what are we?
-
There are no correction in a world with out the "laws of logic" the first second and third laws are all needed to conduct any kind of simple concept of reality. If I'm making choices and your making choices when one makes the observation then they are reflecting on something that's already there to conclude if they are incorrect in their choices. These laws of logic are so solid that you can't help but use these conceptions to live out reality
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It is quite simply bullshit that a framework model of logical thought is tangible in the real world. It is a model. It is not reality. You keep on pretending that absolute truth is governed by a man-made construct.There are no correction in a world with out the "laws of logic" the first second and third laws are all needed to conduct any kind of simple concept of reality. If I'm making choices and your making choices when one makes the observation then they are reflecting on something that's already there to conclude if they are incorrect in their choices. These laws of logic are so solid that you can't help but use these conceptions to live out reality
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Fight club rules.bye🎵 wrote:
According to you or to me?Here's a thought that's interesting to me. Maybe you will find it interesting as well.
In Star Trek, each and every time a person is teleported, the machine kills the traveller, and creates a completely unrelated copy somewhere else. The copy has the same memories as the dead traveller, but we cannot escape the fact that the person was killed on the pad.
So what are we?
-
...Because you realize that reality is just as governed by fight club rules as Aristotle's rules of logic.
It's not.
-
Killing Man wrote:
That's rude & doesn't belong here.I'll throw my hat in this tomorrow it will take to long to read all of this now to catch up and brown now you know what it is like when I argue with mystery and Augustine vice versa
-
bye🎵 wrote:
That is not what I'm saying. I'm in advocate that absolute truth is a statement that reflects a reality I can account for. Your defending that these truths do not exist. Then you are creating the strawman that these laws are man made. That's opposite from what ive said in the past 100 comments₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It is quite simply bullshit that a framework model of logical thought is tangible in the real world. It is a model. It is not reality. You keep on pretending that absolute truth is governed by a man-made construct.There are no correction in a world with out the "laws of logic" the first second and third laws are all needed to conduct then they are reflecting on something that's already there to conclude if they are incorrect in their choices. These laws of logic are so solid that you can't help but use these conceptions to live out reality
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutely sure about that?...Because you realize that reality is just as governed by fight club rules as Aristotle's rules of logic.
It's not.
-
Ok, I just looked up the laws of logic since it's been at least 15 years since I took logic & philosophy.
So for A=A, Aristotle says:
"Now "why a thing is itself" is a meaningless inquiry (for—to give meaning to the question 'why'—the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident—e.g., that the moon is eclipsed—but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical, unless one were to answer, 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this.'"That to be sounds that circular reasoning. A thing is itself because a thing is itself. That doesn't show proof.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It hasn't been debunked.bye🎵 wrote:
And that theory has been debunked because its still is under the law of non contrdiction. For An example in one sense the cat is alive and in another sense the cat is dead which still violates the 2nd law by raising two different sense thus making it a invalid theory. Read the definition of "the law of non contrediction" the cat can not be dead and alive in the same time or in the same way" and that assumes in every senseSchrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, violating the second law of logic, yet can be mathematically proven to be true.
Which sacred bullshit law is in error here?
Aristotle says:
""one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". [note Aristotle's use of indices: 'respect' & 'time']" -
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You can't just set aside physics. Physics is as relevant as mathematics here.💋Karma💋 wrote:
If you wanted to go into physics then this is the wrong forum because I am not a expert of physics and I doubt than anyone here is. We are talking about the laws of logic.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Take two math classes and call me in comfy with contradictory terms. It isn't 😜Mr. Brown fails to see his own error that has been made his belief that we should rely on his ability to
-
For the 3rd law, google says it better than I could:
"Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.) -
Mystery wrote:
"Many" modern logic systems... Gosh! How many can there be? I mean... They are so absolute and universal! Seems like the one Aristotle came up with would be the last word on the matter.For the 3rd law, google says it better than I could:
"Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.)Maybe I'll make up my own logic system, in which our tiny tyke logic expert's endorsement is proof of falsehood.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Yes, I am. It is bizarre to believe that a man-made framework governs reality. I do not require any rules, laws, postulations, multiplication tables or shopping lists to be sure, either. I am wired to think this way. It is apparent to all of us naturally.bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutely sure about that?...Because you realize that reality is just as governed by fight club rules as Aristotle's rules of logic.
It's not.
Does this govern your reality?:
The first law of logic is that Augustine is an unreliable source of information.
No, it does not. But it is a valid observation, and could pass any arbitrary test I would throw at it. It must be truth then. It is as valid as Aristotle's observations.
-
Mystery wrote:
you gave the simple explaination of the law of identity which states "it is what is and it's not what it's not" that is a truth statement that is valid in every sense. A rock is a rock and not a rock is not a rock.Ok, I just looked up the laws of logic since it's been at least 15 years since I took logic & philosophy.
So for A=A, Aristotle says:
"Now "why a thing is itself" is a meaningless inquiry (for—to give meaning to the question already be evident—e.g., that the moon is eclipsed—but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man,That to be sounds that circular reasoning. A thing is itself because a thing is itself. That doesn't show proof.
Right. It's true because it's true doesn't prove how it's true... But my question to you mystery is is circular reasoning absolutely wrong? -
In what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
-
Mystery wrote:
No google blew it. The law of excluded middle states that a statement that is made is either true or false. If the truth of a proposition is unknown then its a argument from ignorance.For the 3rd law, google says it better than I could:
"Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.)
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC