About logic

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 08:35 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Religious mystics, first rate performing artists and accomplished sportsmen all have this in common:

They practice in order to eliminate the thought, to go right with confidence..

Smile


In what sense does the routine prepare a person for the novel? Life is phenomenal to each of us. We can learn from the mistakes of others, but we have to get it right the first, and the only time. Primitives engage in ritual because they want to physically complete the cycle apparent in life, to bring the spring, to ripen the harvest, to hasten the winter. What ritual can we practice that will make this one single thing we call our individual lives complete?
 
perplexity
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 08:51 am
@Fido,
The mistakes of others tell that non conformity is painful.

Self censorship is the most important social ritual, knowing when to keep the mouth shut.

---
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 02:52 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The mistakes of others tell that non conformity is painful.

Self censorship is the most important social ritual, knowing when to keep the mouth shut.

---


Ferme le bouch!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 08:49 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Ferme le bouch!


la bouche (might you mean?) What has this all supposed to do with logic? Anything?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 06:40 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
la bouche (might you mean?) What has this all supposed to do with logic? Anything?


replying to perplexity, and can you believe my French teacher wanted to give me an A. I said: Madam, no one is going to believe that. I did learn to cuss some.
 
Ecstasy
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 06:59 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Self censorship is the most important social ritual, knowing when to keep the mouth shut.

---

Two things betoken levity of intellect: to remain mute when it is proper to speak and to talk when silence is required. -- Sa'di
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:15 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
replying to perplexity, .


Yes, that would explain why your post was irrelevant, all right.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 09:23 am
@Ecstasy,
Ecstasy wrote:
Two things betoken levity of intellect: to remain mute when it is proper to speak and to talk when silence is required. -- Sa'di


Go tell Sa'di that fido's mouth runs like a turkey's ass.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 09:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Yes, that would explain why your post was irrelevant, all right.


Thanks. I deal with reality all the time, but the rest of the time I don't mind cleaning up on unreality.
 
nzgc
 
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 03:22 am
@Neshama,
hey guys! I am a student and my teacher gave me a logic project to make. So, I decided to make a website that have guides to informal fallacy. It also have an attorney game kinda like phoenix wright too so jsut check it out yeah? Hope it can help soem1 here or something =)

home
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 08:16 am
@nzgc,
nzgc wrote:
hey guys! I am a student and my teacher gave me a logic project to make. So, I decided to make a website that have guides to informal fallacy. It also have an attorney game kinda like phoenix wright too so jsut check it out yeah? Hope it can help soem1 here or something =)

home


You know. When ever I get an invitation to some strange place I wonder is this someplace I am going to have to explain to da poleece, or to my spowse. There is just a lot of chicken in this dog. And it ain't all white meat.
Fido
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:28 am
@Neshama,
For your reading pleasure, an interesting perspective on the limitations of 'logic';

This is Not the Title of This Essay:
A Playful Look at Attempts to Solve the Problems of Paradox and Self-Reference


Enjoy
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 06:30 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
For your reading pleasure, an interesting perspective on the limitations of 'logic';

This is Not the Title of This Essay:
A Playful Look at Attempts to Solve the Problems of Paradox and Self-Reference


Enjoy

I did not enjoy. Math can be made to lie as well, or to be more exact, to not tell truth nor lie, but only waste time. There is a fact that is not in the least paradoxical; that the same time youth finds dull age finds brilliant. It is the same time for each moving faster for the old and slower for the young, and it is a lesson too for those who value learning that if you let your past slip away your future will be too fast to catch. Grab this moment by the beard because it is bald behind.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 09:41 pm
@Fido,
Fido;7065 wrote:
I did not enjoy.

A shame that you can't discover that you don't enjoy the food before sampling!

As far as 'truth' and 'lying', if we have no 'free-will/choice', logically, the common prideful egoic labelling of one concept 'true' and another 'false' is no more than ego masturbation. Funny that it is most often 'we' that are 'true' and the other person (that is not saying what we want to hear; something to validate our ricketty world-view, our insecurity) is 'lying'!

The only 'solution/perspective' to the quandry, is to 'believe' nothing and 'tentatively entertain' (be comfortable with) all as-it-is.
At least those who 'believe' nothing do not find this dualism 'problem' to be relevent.

Sorry that you didnt like the link, Fido, here's a bone I hope that you can appreciate. Unfortunately, I do not recall the actual author, the words are not mine;

The a b c proposition

Consider this standard proposition:
Given three objects a, b, and c.
If a = b and a = c, then b = c.

For real objects (the objects exist in what we call the physical universe):

Each of the three objects is declared by the proposition to be unique. How? Each is identifiable (somehow) as separate and distinct from the other two. Note that if the objects are declared to be the same object, the proposition is trivial, since there will be only one object.

An object’s existence (in the physical universe), or presence, is expressed by the object’s interactions with its surroundings. An object interacts with its surroundings by a change in state. The state of an object includes the object’s position relative to its surroundings. Thus, even if all other aspects of the objects’ states are the same, the three objects will not have exactly the same state (including position) at exactly the same time. Note that for the (imaginary) case where there are only the three objects in their universe, and their relative positions do not uniquely identify them, there can be no observer to initiate or confirm the proposition (i.e., the proposition is not presented).

This example is for discrete objects (objects that cannot occupy the same place at the same time). For non-discrete objects (currently only theorized) to retain their identity when collocated, there must be some aspect of their state (not currently defined) that will provide that identity, and that unique identity of each will make them not equal.

So, for real objects, we see that objects will not be equal (have the same state at the same time) and not only does the proposition fail, but the basic postulate (of equality) is incorrect.

For objects in logic:
The proposition declares that one object is equal to two others. In the fantasy of logic one may attempt to define objects, their possible states and surroundings in such a way as to allow this to be true. In order to have even fantasy objects as identifiable, they must have some property that will make each unique, and therefore not equal to any other object.

Ultimately a rigorous examination (proof) should show that the construction of the fantasy is flawed. Then either the logic will have to be abandoned or the proposition declared self-evident, a priori, or something else that needs no proof. In other words, the logic may be accepted even though it is demonstrated to be false.

For objects in mathematics:
Any sort of mathematics that involves something other than real objects is logic. The manipulation of the quantities of fantasy objects does not change the objects. The logic remains flawed.

For mathematics involving real objects, the proposition reduces to each of the three objects representing a quantity of a real object. Just as for fantasy objects, manipulation of the quantities of the real objects does not change the objects. The objects are not equal.

The case in which the objects may be seen as only numbers is trivial. Numbers have no meaning when not associated with (e.g., indicating the quantity of) an object. Manipulating numbers alone is meaningless aside from demonstrating the rules of the particular mathematics.

For ourselves:
The proposition fails for real objects, logic and mathematics. Still, we teach it and use it for solving real problems and even for developing theories of how our universe works. This sort of not thinking is probably at least a part of why so many are so confused by so many others about so much.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 10:24 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
A shame that you can't discover that you don't enjoy the food before sampling!

As far as 'truth' and 'lying', if we have no 'free-will/choice', logically, the common prideful egoic labelling of one concept 'true' and another 'false' is no more than ego masturbation. Funny that it is most often 'we' that are 'true' and the other person (that is not saying what we want to hear; something to validate our ricketty world-view, our insecurity) is 'lying'!

The only 'solution/perspective' to the quandry, is to 'believe' nothing and 'tentatively entertain' (be comfortable with) all as-it-is.
At least those who 'believe' nothing do not find this dualism 'problem' to be relevent.

Sorry that you didnt like the link, Fido, here's a bone I hope that you can appreciate. Unfortunately, I do not recall the actual author, the words are not mine;

The a b c proposition

Consider this standard proposition:
Given three objects a, b, and c.
If a = b and a = c, then b = c.

For real objects (the objects exist in what we call the physical universe):

Each of the three objects is declared by the proposition to be unique. How? Each is identifiable (somehow) as separate and distinct from the other two. Note that if the objects are declared to be the same object, the proposition is trivial, since there will be only one object.

An object's existence (in the physical universe), or presence, is expressed by the object's interactions with its surroundings. An object interacts with its surroundings by a change in state. The state of an object includes the object's position relative to its surroundings. Thus, even if all other aspects of the objects' states are the same, the three objects will not have exactly the same state (including position) at exactly the same time. Note that for the (imaginary) case where there are only the three objects in their universe, and their relative positions do not uniquely identify them, there can be no observer to initiate or confirm the proposition (i.e., the proposition is not presented).

This example is for discrete objects (objects that cannot occupy the same place at the same time). For non-discrete objects (currently only theorized) to retain their identity when collocated, there must be some aspect of their state (not currently defined) that will provide that identity, and that unique identity of each will make them not equal.

So, for real objects, we see that objects will not be equal (have the same state at the same time) and not only does the proposition fail, but the basic postulate (of equality) is incorrect.

For objects in logic:
The proposition declares that one object is equal to two others. In the fantasy of logic one may attempt to define objects, their possible states and surroundings in such a way as to allow this to be true. In order to have even fantasy objects as identifiable, they must have some property that will make each unique, and therefore not equal to any other object.

Ultimately a rigorous examination (proof) should show that the construction of the fantasy is flawed. Then either the logic will have to be abandoned or the proposition declared self-evident, a priori, or something else that needs no proof. In other words, the logic may be accepted even though it is demonstrated to be false.

For objects in mathematics:
Any sort of mathematics that involves something other than real objects is logic. The manipulation of the quantities of fantasy objects does not change the objects. The logic remains flawed.

For mathematics involving real objects, the proposition reduces to each of the three objects representing a quantity of a real object. Just as for fantasy objects, manipulation of the quantities of the real objects does not change the objects. The objects are not equal.

The case in which the objects may be seen as only numbers is trivial. Numbers have no meaning when not associated with (e.g., indicating the quantity of) an object. Manipulating numbers alone is meaningless aside from demonstrating the rules of the particular mathematics.

For ourselves:
The proposition fails for real objects, logic and mathematics. Still, we teach it and use it for solving real problems and even for developing theories of how our universe works. This sort of not thinking is probably at least a part of why so many are so confused by so many others about so much.


You do not know how much I agree with this. And I do, on a quick reading. Then we must ask, in what sense science and math are correct. I would say in general and not exactly, but in average, correct. And since it is living people doing the figuring, they can correct as they go.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 02:30 am
@Fido,
Fido;7164 wrote:
You do not know how much I agree with this.

I kinda suspected.. *__-

Quote:
Then we must ask, in what sense science and math are correct.

They are 'correct' in their very existence. Perfect as 'created', just like us! They are dream tools, useful for dream games by dreamers dreaming a life. By this illusion, all 'doing' gets done and a life is likewise 'dreamt' (lived).
This is called 'pragmatism'. Ex; It is 'pragmatic' in a 'night dream', if being persued by evil clowns, to ba able to launch into the air and fly off to safety. It is more pragmatic to fly off than to run or crawl. If you do not know that you are sleeping, often the 'rules' of the 'waking side' of your dream are similar to the 'sleeping part' of your dream. Day to day, we 'know' that we cannot fly. If you are 'lucid' in your nightdream, know that you are dreaming, you have a bit more 'lattitude' with the rules. You can 'fly'. It is all mnemonic hallucination anyway, there really is no 'difference' between your dreams at night and the dream that you dream when you waken and off to your day! Hahahahah... Quite humorous from one perspective. Quite a horror from another...

Quote:
And since it is living people doing the figuring, they can correct as they go.

Thats the way that it seems, eh?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 05:57 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
I kinda suspected.. *__-


They are 'correct' in their very existence. Perfect as 'created', just like us! They are dream tools, useful for dream games by dreamers dreaming a life. By this illusion, all 'doing' gets done and a life is likewise 'dreamt' (lived).
This is called 'pragmatism'. Ex; It is 'pragmatic' in a 'night dream', if being persued by evil clowns, to ba able to launch into the air and fly off to safety. It is more pragmatic to fly off than to run or crawl. If you do not know that you are sleeping, often the 'rules' of the 'waking side' of your dream are similar to the 'sleeping part' of your dream. Day to day, we 'know' that we cannot fly. If you are 'lucid' in your nightdream, know that you are dreaming, you have a bit more 'lattitude' with the rules. You can 'fly'. It is all mnemonic hallucination anyway, there really is no 'difference' between your dreams at night and the dream that you dream when you waken and off to your day! Hahahahah... Quite humorous from one perspective. Quite a horror from another...


Thats the way that it seems, eh?

Numbers are about useless in my opinion only because we cannot really apply them to the essential relationships between persons. Moral truth cannot be expressed in numbers, and so the sides of mankind: physical and moral have mankind over developed in one sense and undeveloped entirely in another sense. We are the fiddler crabs of existence, able to sieze phisical truth with our massive mathematical claw while groping hesitently for any certain moral truth.
And I would say that your dreamscape notions of concepts leaves much to be desired. A drunks dt's result from dream deprivation; which being passed out does for the drunk. Eventually the brain chemicals released during normal dreaming spill over into waking hours so reality become a blurr, and hallucinations visit. Have you seen my pink elephant?
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 06:51 am
@Fido,
Fido;7230 wrote:
Numbers are about useless in my opinion only because we cannot really apply them to the essential relationships between persons. Moral truth cannot be expressed in numbers, and so the sides of mankind: physical and moral have mankind over developed in one sense and undeveloped entirely in another sense. We are the fiddler crabs of existence, able to sieze phisical truth with our massive mathematical claw while groping hesitently for any certain moral truth.

I like your writing, very poetic. I agree with the general sentiment.


Quote:
And I would say that your dreamscape notions of concepts leaves much to be desired. A drunks dt's result from dream deprivation; which being passed out does for the drunk. Eventually the brain chemicals released during normal dreaming spill over into waking hours so reality become a blurr, and hallucinations visit. Have you seen my pink elephant?

This just tells me that communication has not been achieved. You do not understand what I am saying. (nor do you seem to understand the DTs either. They arise with alcohol deprivation from an addicted system, not dream deprivation. If so, I'd like to see a link). Perhaps I am communicating poorly. Who knows?
My words have different meaning to different perspectives/people at different 'times'. The words didn't 'ripen' for one fellow till about 60 years later. So it goes. That is not up to me. They aren't for everyone. If you don't like the peaches, brother, just move on; no harm no foul.
Perhaps another time.
(Yeah, I got your 'pink elephant'...! Hahahaha..)
Peace
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 10:44 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Numbers are about useless in my opinion only because we cannot really apply them to the essential relationships between persons.


No, moral truths cannot be expressed in numbers, and truths about physics cannot be expressed in poetry (and it doesn't even seem to me that moral truths are poetic truths). Meanwhile, in making moral assessments, it is often important to know about numbers. For example, that Hitler murdered millions of people, and so was an evil man.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 11:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
No, moral truths cannot be expressed in numbers, and truths about physics cannot be expressed in poetry (and it doesn't even seem to me that moral truths are poetic truths). Meanwhile, in making moral assessments, it is often important to know about numbers. For example, that Hitler murdered millions of people, and so was an evil man.

As if the killing of a dog wouldn't mean a man were evil. Stalin was right about the murder of one being a tragedy and the murder of millions being a statistic. When we cannot grasp even the death of a single person we love how can we begin to comprehend millions of deaths. It is enough to grasp that with some horrors people are put out of humanity and so cannot be considered even human, and so the notion of evil in regard to them is meaningless.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 05:29:49