An introduction to formal logic [Archive]

Hellbound

28th October 2002, 10:45 PM

From your own statements, Franko:

1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)

Agreed, no one argues this.

2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)

Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition. Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.

3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)

Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states. No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:

1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T

Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.

A more correct syllogy would be:

1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.

Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.

Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.

Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do). You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.

Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.

Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).

Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.

Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.

Sincerely,
Huntsman

chulbert

28th October 2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that You are NOT made of atoms?

Are you claiming that Atoms do NOT obey the Laws of Physics

Are you claiming that YOU CAN DISOBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS???

OKAY!!! I hear you! Just do IT ... and shut me up once and for all!

What is with you nutty A-Theists?

Put up or shut up!

I do not believe anyone is necessarily questioning the truth of your syllogism. They are merely pointing out its logical error, thus rendering it invalid as any sort of proof of anything.

Fade

28th October 2002, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have found plenty of the sites that have the logical fallacies, but I want to find out what it is rather than what it is not.

Okay, I am honestly confused now.

What "it" are you referring to now? Fallacy of Composition, or Logical Fallacies in general?

Please ask your question again :confused:

Hellbound

28th October 2002, 11:10 PM

I think he's looking for a primer on valid logic, rather than a listing of fallacies.

At least that's my understanding.

Fade

28th October 2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
I think he's looking for a primer on valid logic, rather than a listing of fallacies.

At least that's my understanding.

Oi, I wouldn't know where to start. I am the last person you want teaching!

Here's a site that does a run down of what was in a lot of my books.
http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/m/mauritz/math/logic/infolo.htm

a_unique_person

28th October 2002, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Fade

Oi, I wouldn't know where to start. I am the last person you want teaching!

Here's a site that does a run down of what was in a lot of my books.
http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/m/mauritz/math/logic/infolo.htm

Thanks, that's more like it. Other sites I found were a bit more opaque.

Fade

29th October 2002, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Thanks, that's more like it. Other sites I found were a bit more opaque.

Logic can get very dry, but I am happy to be of service.

The most basic way of looking at logic, is to think of it as a consistency check. It sorts out what is and is not consistent, but can't be used by itself to determine truth :)

Peter Soderqvist

29th October 2002, 01:16 AM

TO FADE

Fade wrote 10-29-2002 04:49 AM: That's basically the whole of it. C is a letter. A is a letter. T is a letter. CAT is not a letter.

Soderqvist1: CAT is only letters here, because you have not defined the word Cat!

Fade even wrote: While it is possible to arrive at a conclusion which is broadly correct, it is still a fallacy to arrive at the conclusion due to assuming it's property. For instance: Cats are animals. Kittens are animals. A litter of kittens are animals.

Soderqvist1: You have defined Cats as animals here, not letters, and therefore; Cats are animals, and kittens are animals, and a litter of kittens are animals too! These letters of Cat is a word, which is only a symbol for a real thing in the world, some animal, and the word cat is not the object we are speaking about, because a map is not the territory, it is only an description, not the territory itself, the reason is simple because; I am a owner of a map here, but I don't own any country, hence it follows from that, that the map is not the territory, and furthermore; a map cannot describe all its territory, because our world is a dynamic entity, and thus changes all the time, but a real map is static in its context, but the materials which this map is made of, fade away through time, as all real objects do!

Formal logic has its limits, for instance, all Cretans are liars, and when one Cretan say; I am a liar, he is not a liar, because he has admit that he is liar, and if it is lie, it is the truth anyway, that a Cretan is a liar! And the genuine skeptic who has alleged that, that he doesn't know anything, it is not truth, because he knows that, that he doesn't know anything! ;)

Fade

29th October 2002, 01:36 AM

I don't know if you're being facetious or not Peter, but:

Soderqvist1: You have defined Cats as animals here, not letters, and therefore; Cats are animals, and kittens are animals, and a litter of kittens are animals too!

While the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise. One can not assume a property of the whole solely by it's component parts.

A litter of kittens are animals because of the definition of "animal" not because kittens are animals.

Many of us excercise illogic in our every day lives, because the end result works, regardless of the error.

Peter Soderqvist

29th October 2002, 03:23 AM

TO FADE

Fade wrote 10-29-2002 08:36 AM: While the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise. One cannot assume a property of the whole solely by its component parts. A litter of kittens are animals because of the definition of "animal" not because kittens are animals. Many of us exercise illogic in our every day lives, because the end result works, regardless of the error.

Soderqvist1: My way of arguing is not holistic, nor reductionistic, but something between these extremes! Cat, or act, t a c , are only undefined letters in our premise number1.

Cats are obviously animals by your definition inside your premise number 2.

Premise number 1 is not premise number 2, they are therefore only consistent on their own levels, but they are illogical as you have said, if we intermix, or confuses them, so don't do that! ;)

Kullervo

29th October 2002, 06:19 AM

The problem with many of these allegedly fallacious arguments is that the premisses are true and the conclusion is true, but the conclusion does not follow by necessity from the premisses.

You must examine the formal structure of the argument to spot the fallacy, not the truth value of the propositions.

The form should be

If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

If the conclusion can be false while the premisses are true, then the argument is invalid. This is the basis for reductio ad absurdem.

From contradictory premisses, anything can be inferred.

A valid argument may contain false premisses and a false conclusion. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premisses. Logic doesn't generally care if the argument is sound, only that it is valid.
The fallacy of composition is a formal fallacy, like affirming the consequent, and has nothing to do with the truth of the component propositions.

Couple of fallacies and valid arguments for examples

Affirming the consequent:

If A then B
B
Therefore A - invalid.

Denying the consequent (modus tollens)

If A then B
Not B
Therefore not A - valid

Affirming the antecedant (modus ponens)

If A then B
A
Therefore B - valid

Composition

A (and B and C...) have property X
Y is made A (and B and C...)
Therefore Y has property X.

All three statements MAY be true, but the conclusion does not follow. (Hydrogen and Oxygen are gases at room temperature, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, therefore water is a gas at room temperature)

Division
A has property X
A is made of B (and C and D...)
Therefore B (and C and D...) have property X. - Invalid

I got a million of them

Doubt

29th October 2002, 09:47 AM

Whitefork,

Keep posting like that and I am going to have to find my old text book just to keep up. I cannot remember the title, but the fallacy examples were funny. They even used the Marx Brothers for ambiguity:

I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

What was an elephant doing in your pajamas?

Kullervo

29th October 2002, 09:52 AM

Sounds like Pospesel's "Arguments", a fine book.

A favorite, from the comic Freddy (two brothers talking, about ages 4 and 5):

"If I had a nickel I'd be rich".
"No, if you had a nickel, you'd be poor".
"Yay! I AM rich."

Attrayant

29th October 2002, 12:14 PM

Here's my favorite. Not too dry, with some good examples.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Franko

29th October 2002, 09:23 PM

Huntsman,

Sorry I must have missed this …

From your own statements, Franko:

1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)

Agreed, no one argues this.

Good up to here … check!

2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)

Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition.

Wait a minute there … BUT THIS IS WERE THE ATHEISTS ARE WRONG. Because the Atheists are mixing up Atoms with TLOP. This Syllogism is ultimately about YOU, TLOP, and CONTROL, not about atoms. While it is TRUE that you are made up of more than ONE atom (and the syllogism is worded “Atoms” – plural) that fact does not alter the conclusion that one atom, or a group of atoms obeys the laws of physics. The syllogism is not saying YOU = 1 ATOM. It is saying that YOU = THINGS CONTROLLED BY TLOP.

If you have evidence that multiple atoms can disobey the laws of physics, then this premise in the syllogism would be invalid (and you Atheists would have a point), but as it stands there is NO EVIDENCE that more than one atom can disobey the laws of Physics. In fact, the exact opposite is TRUE, and it seems that individual atoms are if anything less predictable then groups of atoms.

Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.

Only if you are going out of your way to NOT understand the terms involved. And ONLY if you have already decided that the syllogism is FALSE in advance.

3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)

Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states.

No it is for exactly those reasons. BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism. The only reason the A-theists are putting up a fight, is because this directly refutes there “NO Evidence For GOD” nonsense.

Yeah … No evidence for God – If you are deliberately not looking or blind!

No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:

1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T

Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.

If you say so. Defy the Laws of Physics and prove it.

A more correct syllogy would be:

1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.

Other than your is more confusing, and less people will understand it less clearly then mine. How does this prove the existence of “free will”, or support the assertion that your Car is more conscious then you are?

Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.

Really? Perhaps you can start by explaining where and how B.F. Skinner and 50+ years of empirical Behavioral research are all wrong???

Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.

Take your own advice A-Theist. Either that, or imagine in your head that you have actually refuted me on this point, or better still just imagine that you actually HAVE disobeyed the Laws of Physics!!!

Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do).

Sure … how about you demonstrate how easy it is to prove “God” doesn’t exist first … A-Theist?

You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.

… Then you can disprove the existence of the “afterlife” for us …

Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.

Like I said … just keep telling yourself that A-Theism can’t be wrong! … it just CAN’T!!! Maybe if you keep wishing it will come TRUE, and you really will get to cease to exist just like you have always dreamed!

Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).

Yes, I noticed your condescending “I’m a Superior A-Theists – we are never wrong” attitude a mile away.

Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.

Why is it that A-Theists Illusions such as “free will” are acceptable, but Theist “illusions” such as “God” and “afterlife” are unacceptable? Why don’t you just say it – Your Religion is the One True Faith; Ergo it is BETTER than all of the Other Religions.

Don’t all religions claim that?

If you believe in “free will” then you define it – NOT ME! IF you are asserting the existence of “free will”, then you PROVE IT – NOT ME! The Burden of Proof falls on the claimant. You are claiming “free will” NOT ME! I don't even know what you mean when you use that term? To me it sounds like you are claiming you can make a 4-sided triangle, and none of you A-Theists can or will explain yourself. You always say "You (Franko) define "free will" for us!"

Absurd!

But If you really understood the first thing about Logic you would already KNOW this. Instead you make yourself look like an insolent little Nitwit, trying to lecture Me, on something you obviously don’t comprehend.

Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.

Ahhh yes … you and your fellow A-Theists have showed such a willingness and openness to sharing. Next to your “open-mindedness”, kindness and respect I’d say it is your greatest virtue … :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hellbound

29th October 2002, 09:36 PM

Franko,

Your comments are noted.

However, if you had read my post, I was trying to give you a supportable argument. I was arguing FOR your case.

I also tried to be civil and respectful.

I asserted nothing, I simply stated a way to correct the logic of the syllogism and to present your argument.
You appear to not be interested in logic.

You are already on my ignore list, as I predicted you would respond in this manner. I thought I would give you a chance at calm, rational discourse.

Look carefully at my post. I pointed out logical errors, but where did I assert anything?

I made no assertion that God doesn't exist, or that there is no afterlife.

I also made no assertion that I could "disobey TLOP"; in fact, I specifically and repeatably agreed that I could not.

I specifically listed free will as an illusion (you know, something that is NOT real). If you want to add God and afterlife to the list of illusions, I would wholeheartedly agree. Congratulations, Franko, you are now an atheist.

Your argument about your syllogism shows a complete lack of understanding of formal logic. I will not attempt to explain it again, as all you will do is rant and rave and spout your ignorance (in the technical sense).

My superior attitude was not because of my atheism or your lack thereof, but because of my greater understanding of logic, and your predictably childish and mundane response.

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me. I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

I was met with your strawman arguments (falsly claiming I made arguments which I did not, and attacking those), your unbacked assertions (that your obviously flawed logic, shown to be flawed many times over, is somehow accurate and true), and your unwillingness to engage in conversation (preferring only insults, even when someone replies to you respectfully). These have marked you as beneath my interest.

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

Franko

29th October 2002, 09:57 PM

I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:04 PM

Huntsman,

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

Thanks! … and You have fun with that whole “free willy”, meaningless, ultimately consequence free, existence until it ceases – okay?

I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

You have tried to help me? How, by convincing me, that myself, and everyone I care about will cease to exist?

… Thanks? :confused:

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me.

Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Don’t let me “receive” one either … Please Great Goddess …

evildave

29th October 2002, 10:12 PM

Oh, I see!

A clock has to be built of tiny CLOCK-shaped atoms that tick, and a computer has to be built of tiny COMPUTER-shaped atoms that compute.

That's why you think people are less than the sum of their parts; it's because they're made of PEOPLE atoms!

Perfectly sensible. Now it all 'makes sense'.

How could we have missed it?

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Franko,

I also tried to be civil and respectful.

Your first mistake.

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:14 PM

So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:16 PM

C_u_p

Your first mistake.

I notice you’re not rushing up to the front of the line to explain it.

I wonder why? Fate got your tongue?

Hehehehe … :D

evildave

29th October 2002, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

Well, if I'm made of "people" atoms, why I'm behaving like "people" atoms do. Isn't that what your silly-gism says?

Hellbound

29th October 2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Your first mistake.

I prefer not to think of it as a mistake. I will attempt a civil and respectuful discord, almost always, as my first attempt.

When that fails, there's no real reason to continue with that person, is there?

I have yet to find a situation where insults and arguments around a point, rather than discussions of a point, have been fruitful.

Don't take that the wrong way, mind you, I know some find it fun, and I'm not trying to take a superior attitude or anything. It's like poking the big mangy dog next door through the fence ;) Just not my thing.

It's sad, when you try to strengthen one's argument and the one you're trying to assist attempts to shoot you down for it.

Oh well, they say drowing people will often pull their would-be rescuers under with them. I have not the "swimming" skill to avoid that, so I bow out :)

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that :)

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:38 PM

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

:rolleyes:

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

I think that this is part of the problem.

The fallacy is based on composition, which as I understand it, says that atoms < TLOP, you = Atoms, you < TLOP. However, the problem with this is that we are not saying where in the 'less than' range we are talking about.

E.g. U < A < P.
Also possible is A < U < P.

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

evildave

29th October 2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

:rolleyes:

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

It's bull-pucky because YOU said it. ;)

Wasn't that easy?

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that :)

The smiley. George Orwell would have put it in 1984 if he knew about it.

Fade

30th October 2002, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO FADE

Soderqvist1: My way of arguing is not holistic, nor reductionistic, but something between these extremes! Cat, or act, t a c , are only undefined letters in our premise number1.

You misunderstand.
C is a letter.
A is a letter
T is a letter.

Here I have defined all these things as letters. They are letters. K?

Cat is, therefore, a letter.

Cat is a word, not a letter. It is composed of letters, but is not in and of itself a letter.

If you want to argue semantic ********, please spare us all.

But, my cat example, and my SALT example are examples of illogic, mainly Fallacy of Composition.

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A litter of kittens are animals

While the conclusion is true, this syllogism is false. As I have plainly demonstrated in my CAT and SALT example, this line of thinking doesn't hold water. Sure, you can come to a conclusion that is objectively true, but to do so in this manner is NOT LOGICAL.

Cats are obviously animals by your definition inside your premise number 2.

Cats and Kittens are animals. Maybe my syllogism wasn't the best example, which is why I chose to put a better example later.

How about:

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A soup of made of cats and kittens is an animal

Better?

Premise number 1 is not premise number 2, they are therefore only consistent on their own levels, but they are illogical as you have said, if we intermix, or confuses them, so don't do that! ;)

Mind repeating this in english?

Franko

30th October 2002, 02:12 PM

A_U_P,

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

So hows does the discovery of “new laws” of physics (???) change anything in the above syllogism?

Is this the A-Theism of the Gaps argument again? One day “Science” will prove that our religion is TRUE? In the mean time – take our word for it!!! HAVE FAITH IN THE DOGMA OF A-THEISM!

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

So you are claiming that economics defies the Laws of Physics?

When is your peer-reviewed paper on this being published?

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

You A-Theists don’t understand the first thing about the Laws of Thermodynamics. But that point aside … what is your evidence for “free will”? What makes you believe that you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

evildave

30th October 2002, 02:38 PM

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

The 'The Laws Of Physics' only describes atoms and their interactions with each other. It does not CAUSE it. I am not a part of 'The Laws Of Physics', because I do not exist in a pile of paper and theories.

Why don't you just 'fix' your silly-jism to say what you mean:

YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!

or perhaps

YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!

You're already halfway there, anyway.

Martin

30th October 2002, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Franko
BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Franko's syllogism is invalid

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:07 PM

Ohhh martinm …

I had always suspected that you were a closet “free willyier” …

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Franko's syllogism is invalid

All men are mortal (is that TRUE?)
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal

So what does this have to do with the fact that your religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on?

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR.

Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:09 PM

He (evildoughboy) cannot resist. He is powerless to resist. Just watch for yourself ...

Martin

30th October 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Ohhh martinm …

I had always suspected that you were a closet “free willyier” …

That would make you both suspicious and wrong. Where did I say anything about free will?

So what does this have to do with the fact that your religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on?

Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR

Two statements inconsistent. If all my actions are completely controlled by TLOP, it cannot meaningfully be said that I control anything. More correctly, TLOP would control the car/me system.

Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

I don't.

Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

Absent evidence of any fundamentally inexplicable phenomena, I assume that the Universe admits a complete logical description. Therefore there exists a set of information which is the minimum neccesary to fully describe it. Do you agree so far?

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:31 PM

Martinm,

Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

No … because the conclusion must flow from the premises (it must consist only of terms defined in the premises). My syllogism conforms to that rule. Yours here does not. Obviously you understand no more about syllogisms or Logic then any other brain-dead A-Theist I have talked to.

Two statements inconsistent. If all my actions are completely controlled by TLOP, it cannot meaningfully be said that I control anything. More correctly, TLOP would control the car/me system.

So what? You control your car, but really TLOP controls your CAR by controlling YOU – SO WHAT???

How does that makes you more conscious then TLOP?

I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP?

Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

Franko:
Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

martinm:
I don't.

Franko:
Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

martinm:
Absent evidence of any fundamentally inexplicable phenomena, I assume that the Universe admits a complete logical description. Therefore there exists a set of information which is the minimum neccesary to fully describe it. Do you agree so far?

If you are saying that ultimately there is an equation (or algorithm) which describes all motion (all events) in the Universe then I am in complete agreement.

… you are headed for Solipsism with this argument though …

… perhaps that algorithm is already in your head … generating this universe all around you from your subconscious mind … then you would have Free will, but me and all the rest of the figments … would not …

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

Not a syllogism, and not a (valid) argument.

Try this:

2+2 = 4
2+2 = 5

therefore the earth is round. (or, therefore the earth is not round)

In symbolic terms P and not-P implies Q.

Valid argument either way. Anything follows from contradictory premisses.

In your example, the denial of the consequent does not imply that the premisses are contradictory (reductio).

Franko

30th October 2002, 04:15 PM

whitehead,

2+2 = 4
2+2 = 5

therefore the earth is round. (or, therefore the earth is not round)

I'd bet a hundred bucks you are NO computer programmer.

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:25 PM

You lose. I am.

This truth table:

(P) (Not-P) (P and Not-P) (Q) (P and Not-P implies Q)

T F F T T
F T F T T
T F F F T
F T F F T

All possibilities are represented here.

(P) (Q) (P implies Q)
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

You can program this. It works. You can do it in Excel for heaven's sake.

Franko, please read a book on symbollic logic. Heck, even WFF n Proof has this one. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

(not very readable, but set it out in colums.)

evildave

30th October 2002, 04:36 PM

(Not that Franko would pay up.)

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:39 PM

(Rainman voice) "I'm an excellent programmer".

where do you think unemployed logicians end up anyway?

Martin

30th October 2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Franko
No … because the conclusion must flow from the premises (it must consist only of terms defined in the premises). My syllogism conforms to that rule. Yours here does not.

Try to pay attention. I was responding to your statement - "BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism" - and demonstrating that it is false, a point on which you clearly agree, or you wouldn't mention that the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Obviously you understand no more about syllogisms or Logic then any other brain-dead A-Theist I have talked to.

Allow me to refresh your memory -

Originally posted by MartinM
Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms
You obey TLOP

There are several problems - some mere semantics, for instance - I'm pretty sure I am made partly of ions, too. Some are more fundamental - the two premises do not contain between them a pair of codivisional classes. The major premise and the conclusion both contain 'things which obey TLOP'. The minor premise and the conclusion both contain 'you'. But the major and minor premises contain between them 'atoms' and 'things made of atoms'. These are not codivisional - that is, when you separate 'atoms' from the set of all things, the set 'things made from atoms' is not created in the division. In order to make the argument valid, you would have to add the line - 'all things made from atoms obey that which atoms obey'. That fixes the main problems, but not the semantic ones. I would suggest a simpler approach -

All physical objects obey TLOP
You are a physical object
You obey TLOP

That is certainly a valid syllogism. Now all that remains is to define 'physical', and determine whether or not a person can be described in purely physical terms. If not, the minor premise is false

Originally posted by Franko
The reason I prefer my variation is because I believe “atoms” are more precisely defined within this context then the term “physical” is in your version. As you mention although technically flawed, overall my syllogism is still correct. While your version may be technically more accurate, it is linguistically more unclear in my assessment

(emphasis mine)

So what? You control your car, but really TLOP controls your CAR by controlling YOU – SO WHAT???

How does that makes you more conscious then TLOP?

My point is simply that if TLOP controls me entirely, there can be no analogy drawn between the relationships in the TLOP/me and me/car systems.

I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP? Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

No. I assume it. That's what agnostic atheism means.

If you are saying that ultimately there is an equation (or algorithm) which describes all motion (all events) in the Universe then I am in complete agreement… you are headed for Solipsism with this argument though …perhaps that algorithm is already in your head … generating this universe all around you from your subconscious mind … then you would have Free will, but me and all the rest of the figments … would not …

Now - this information set must contain a complete description of conciousness, yes?

Martin

30th October 2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
In your example, the denial of the consequent does not imply that the premisses are contradictory (reductio).

Nor is it meant to...

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Martinm

Nor is it meant to...

Of course. How could I be so dense?

Franko

30th October 2002, 06:44 PM

Martinm,

My point is simply that if TLOP controls me entirely, there can be no analogy drawn between the relationships in the TLOP/me and me/car systems.

How so? By decree?

It’s a hierarchy. TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

What you seem to be saying is that in a game of D&D there can be no analogies drawn between the Dungeonmaster, the Character, and the Horse (the Character is riding).

You guys are the “Logical” ones?

Franko:
I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP? Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

martinm:
No. I assume it. That's what agnostic atheism means.

Ohhh martinm!!! … I had no idea you were another one of these nitwits!

Let me see if I can play this game too!

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

How can?

TLOP controls YOU = (YOU SUPERIOR)
YOU control CAR = (YOU SUPERIOR)

Is that just like …

YOU control EVERYONE (YOU SUPERIOR)?

For the Goddess’ sake Man -- Have you NO sense of consistency?!?!

Now - this information set must contain a complete description of conciousness, yes?

Depends on what you mean? Despite whiteforks assertion that he is a “programmer” (whitefork, if its really true – please stop telling people!) he certainly wouldn’t understand it, but the equation could be real, real simple. Maybe its just got a lot of recursion in it … like the Mandelbrot set?

… but I’d be careful going down that road … A-Theist … you won’t like where it leads …

evildave

30th October 2002, 06:58 PM

4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

If you assume '4' represents "Four pieces of glass, larger than one square inch", then you take four more and drop them all in a bucket, and count the result, this outcome is actually possible.

Why do you ASSUME "numbers" are all there is to any given problem?

Pure logic is pitiful when its assumptions are never tested in the real world. Only the most foolish of people would believe complex assertions based on untested (UNTESTABLE?) assertions are correct.

Franko

30th October 2002, 09:15 PM

In response to the recent slew of emails -- NO! evildave is NOT really my sock puppet -- he just pretends to be (wink, wink) ;) ...

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 06:06 AM

Hey let's have some more fun. An argument:

Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

Valid or invalid? Show your work. Remember, both premises and the conclusion are true, and the terms in the conclusion appear in the premises, and there is "flow".

Another:

An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.

Valid or invalid?

Another

An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

Valid or invalid?

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Despite whiteforks assertion that he is a “programmer” (whitefork, if its really true – please stop telling people!)

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions. [leaving this one in however]

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.

CWL

31st October 2002, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Forget the syllogism ...

Just any one of you A-Theists (just one) disobey the Laws of Physics.

If you are claiming that you do NOT obey the Laws of Physics, then kinding demonstrate this -- what is so hard to understand?

Are you claiming that You are NOT made of atoms?

Are you claiming that Atoms do NOT obey the Laws of Physics

Are you claiming that YOU CAN DIOBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS???

OKAY!!! I hear you! Just do IT ... and shut me up once and for all!

The problem Franko is that the syllogism does not prove what you say it does. You want to add further conclusions after "you obey the laws of physics", as I understand it

1) "therefore you have no free will"; and
2) "therefore TLOP is your God".

The above will be true or false depending on how we define "free will" and/or "God". Further it will depend on how we define "TLOP" ("map" or land, "remember") and "obey" ("are restricted by" or "follow the orders of" etc.).

The point is my friend that in itself the syllogism proves nothing. It does not contain any infallible logical truth as you seem to claim.

Sorry Franko. Back to the drawing board.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:00 AM

CWL,

The problem Franko is that the syllogism does not prove what you say it does.

How so? Point out the error.

You want to add further conclusions after "you obey the laws of physics", as I understand it

Then obviously You don’t understand it.

What is your definition of “free will”?

What is your evidence for “free will”?

YOU CLAIM FREE WILL – YOU PROVE FREE WILL!!!

1) "therefore you have no free will"; and
2) "therefore TLOP is your God".

The above will be true or false depending on how we define "free will" and/or "God". Further it will depend on how we define "TLOP" ("map" or land, "remember") and "obey" ("are restricted by" or "follow the orders of" etc.).

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP

So how are unknown subtles in the Laws of Physics going to ever provide you with “free will”? How are they going to change this Syllogism? And more importantly WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS???

The point is my friend that in itself the syllogism proves nothing.

Nice assertion – try proving it for a change.

It does not contain any infallible logical truth as you seem to claim.

It contains the Truth – despite Your transparent claim to the contrary.

IF THERE IS AN INVISIBLE FLAW THEN KINDLY POINT IT OUT OR KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.

Sorry Franko. Back to the drawing board.

Your devout Faith in the Cult of A-Theism is secure CWL. You are a True Religious fanatic – just like whitefork.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:01 AM

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:05 AM

Whitehead,

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]

I honestly have trouble believing you are a programmer.

You do realize, that using a web browser, or Microsoft WORD does not actually qualify as “programming”?

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions. [leaving this one in however]

Yes … I realize that you keep telling me that there is an “invisible” flaw, but I am waiting for you to actually PROVE IT. Since you seem unwilling or unable I can only assume that this “flaw” is simply a figment of your imagination – a delusion on your part.

Religious nitwits such as yourself are very prone to delusions.

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.

Yeah … you’re a-Theism has an “invisible” flaw too, but I can’t tell you what it is. Read the Bible for a while (or some other Religious books) then you should be able to see your error.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:19 AM

23 years IBM mainframe systems, assembler, COBOL, REXX, CICS, IDMS.

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

About that truth table?

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:25 AM

Whitefork,

23 years IBM mainframe systems, assembler, COBOL, REXX, CICS, IDMS.

unbelievable …

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

yeah … and some other stuff …

About that truth table?

I realize that you desperately need to refocus attention away from your “invisible free willy God” A-Theist, but I am only interested in demonstrating what a bunch of fanatics your Cult is. Your agenda of diversion is counter to my agenda.

However if you would care to demonstrate your evidence for “free willy”?

… or if you would care to attempt and explain how your “magic” A-theist vision works which allows you to see the Emperors New Clothes and “invisible” Logic flaws that ordinary mortals cannot see.

When did you first develop these “magic powers”? Do only A-Theist have these magic powers to see invisible things like “free willy”? Do you think that perhaps Christians have a similar “magic power” that allows them to see their “invisible God” as well?

So what is the difference between your religion and theirs really?

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:27 AM

Wrong again, Franko.

All I care about is the validity of your argument. That free will, laws of physics, god, business is of no interest to me.

Your argument. Please demonstrate its validity.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:29 AM

2 + 2 = 4

demonstarte the validity of that whitehead ...

I suspect there is an invisible flaw

point it out for us!!!

Victor Danilchenko

31st October 2002, 09:30 AM

whitefork

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]Remember, Frankissimo is a programmer who doesn't even know what a Bubblesort is.

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions.Frankie didn't even know that "=>" stands for logical implication, he thought is was "greater or equal" sign -- in a context where implication was unambiguously meant.

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.He doesn't need a book, he needs a brain transplant.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:35 AM

I have more confidence in Franko than you do, Victor.

Validity is not an easy concept, but it can be grasped. Patience is perhaps the key.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:40 AM

2 + 2 = 4 is not an argument.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:50 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactly what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t not equal 4.

Completely absurd, but if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” …

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are …

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:56 AM

Franko, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a syllogism.

2 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.
4 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your argument is valid.
Please try harder, and don't change the subject.

How about my "Muslims/Saudis/terrorists" argument?
Valid or not?

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:53 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:54 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:56 AM

Whitehead (A-Theist Religious Fanatic and “free willy” believer):

2 + 2 = 4 is not a syllogism.

Sure it is …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * * (premise)
2) 4 = * * * * (premise)
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

2 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

Sure it is.

2 = * *

The equals (=) implies the relationship between symbol (2) and object (* *).

4 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

You understanding nothing about how computers actually work – do you Whitehead?

evildave

31st October 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Franko
In response to the recent slew of emails -- NO! evildave is NOT really my sock puppet -- he just pretends to be (wink, wink) ;) ...

Yes, Franko 'puh-sychically' promised me a car when he wins that Randi prize for remote controlling people.

Franko

31st October 2002, 11:39 AM

I swear ... I didn't make him say that! ;)

I never make him say NOTHING ... he says Nothing all on his own ...

CWL

1st November 2002, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Franko
How so? Point out the error.

The syllogism is true or false depending on how we define "TLOP" and "obey". There is that, and the fallacy of composition. The sum may very well be greater than the parts. "We" as a whole are not bound to act like atoms because as a whole we are different from atoms.

Do you like salt? Would you consume sodium or chloride?

The further conclusions you seem to add (that we have no free will and that TLOP is a god) do not necessarily follow.

Then obviously You don’t understand it.

What is your definition of “free will”?

What is your evidence for “free will”?

YOU CLAIM FREE WILL – YOU PROVE FREE WILL!!!

I perceive myself making conscious choices. This is as true as saying "I perceive myself thinking". The statement "I think therefore I am" also looses its meaning from the viewpoint that it is all just the "deterministic result of chemical reactions in your brain" as you put it.

Why "deterministic"? If there are many possible results, you can only predict that one such result will occur - you cannot predict which one. Ever heard of chaos theory? There's your free will. There's your randomness and unpredictability.

You really don't see the dichotomous nature of the universe do you? Maybe you have been programming a bit too much?

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP

So how are unknown subtles in the Laws of Physics going to ever provide you with “free will”? How are they going to change this Syllogism? And more importantly WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS???

I am not sure what you mean with "UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS". TLOP are "what is", "how the world functions", "what is physically possible" etc. "Map" or "land" Franko, make up your mind!

If we accept that consciousness is a property allowed by TLOP, a result of matter compiled and combined in a certain way, how does TLOP prevent a conscious being from making conscious choices between available options?

Nice assertion – try proving it for a change.

Well, I certainly cannot see that your syllogism proves anything. If you claim that it does, kindly explain what it is meant to prove.

It contains the Truth – despite Your transparent claim to the contrary.

What truth? That there is a certain nature of things? That's not very revolutionary, is it?

IF THERE IS AN INVISIBLE FLAW THEN KINDLY POINT IT OUT OR KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.

If there is an invisible evidence of anything, kindly share it with everyone.

Your devout Faith in the Cult of A-Theism is secure CWL. You are a True Religious fanatic – just like whitefork.

Yep, me and High Priest Forkster chanting to our beloved A-God all day long.

Seriously Franko, ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of projection?

Franko

1st November 2002, 02:05 PM

CWL,

The syllogism is true or false depending on how we define "TLOP" and "obey". There is that, and the fallacy of composition. The sum may very well be greater than the parts. "We" as a whole are not bound to act like atoms because as a whole we are different from atoms.

So you are claiming that TLOP does not exist, or is poorly defined?

As for “obey” I have defined that term so many times. I can’t imagine you don’t understand what it means.

Just Disobey the Laws of Physics if you claim it can be done.

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS a function of TLOP.

The fact that you don’t know TLOP completely has no baring on this algorithm.

I perceive myself making conscious choices. This is as true as saying "I perceive myself thinking". The statement "I think therefore I am" also looses its meaning from the viewpoint that it is all just the "deterministic result of chemical reactions in your brain" as you put it.

So in other words you freely acknowledge it is nothing more than Wishful Thinking on your part.

Why "deterministic"? If there are many possible results, you can only predict that one such result will occur - you cannot predict which one. Ever heard of chaos theory? There's your free will. There's your randomness and unpredictability.

When you start using words like unpredictable, chaos, “free will”, and random, what you are claiming is that there is NO underlying logical process; therefore, it must be illogical – that is – Supernatural, or Magical.

Is that your idea of “Science” religious fanatic?

You really don't see the dichotomous nature of the universe do you? Maybe you have been programming a bit too much?

The Universe is NOT Magical, simply because you don’t want it to be Logical.

If we accept that consciousness is a property allowed by TLOP, a result of matter compiled and combined in a certain way, how does TLOP prevent a conscious being from making conscious choices between available options?

Because there are NO OPTIONS. What evidence have you presented for “Options”? Does the Moon have Options? Why do you think tat you have options, and the Moon does not? Does a Sponge have options? Do Bacteria have options? How about Dogs and Cats? If you jump from the roof of a tall building do you instantly lose your “free will”, or do you still have options?

Well, I certainly cannot see that your syllogism proves anything. If you claim that it does, kindly explain what it is meant to prove.

Unless you have EVIDENCE which contradicts it (which all you A-Theist CLAIM, but never manage to produce), then it means you don’t have “Free Will”!

What is your Evidence for “free will” CWL? Your “free will” seems even more invisible than the Christian God to me. Should I take your assertion on Faith?

What truth? That there is a certain nature of things? That's not very revolutionary, is it?

I guess that would depend on if you believe you have “free will” or not?

If there is an invisible evidence of anything, kindly share it with everyone.

It is very simple CWL – if you are claiming to have “free will”, then kindly provide your evidence for it. Otherwise, withdrawn your claim, and concede defeat like a real Man would do.

Seriously Franko, ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of projection?

Very familiar …

Projection = uncontrolled expressions of ones own mental state or thoughts.

CWL

2nd November 2002, 06:14 AM

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story. This is not the Matrix.

Back to the drawing board Franko.

Franko

2nd November 2002, 08:11 AM

CWL,

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story.

Do you get to decide?

I thought you said Solipsism wasn’t TRUE? Have you suddenly realized that we are all just figments of your imagination after all? Now you can just decree what is TRUE, and what is FALSE?

This is not the Matrix.

The evidence refutes your claim.

If you believe that reality is determined by your Wishful Thinking then the world is NOT the “Matrix”; otherwise, you have some explaining to do … A-Theist. You can start by explaining exactly why everything isn’t all just Energy. Explain where Einstein went wrong?

Back to the drawing board ...

Hey! … that’s what I was gonna say to You … CWL!

Martin

2nd November 2002, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko
It’s a hierarchy. TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

That's a meaningless statement unless TLOP does not fully determine my actions. If I have no choices at all, I can make no choices as to the state of the car. TLOP determines it all.

What you seem to be saying is that in a game of D&D there can be no analogies drawn between the Dungeonmaster, the Character, and the Horse (the Character is riding)

The DM allows the Player to make choices, so there is no analogy at all.

Ohhh martinm!!! … I had no idea you were another one of these nitwits!

By your definitions, I'm agnostic.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

I actually have no problem with that, so long as you're consistent.

TLOP controls YOU = (YOU SUPERIOR)
YOU control CAR = (YOU SUPERIOR)

In a Universe where my actions are completely determined by TLOP, in what way am I superior to my car?

Franko

2nd November 2002, 10:33 PM

Martinm,

Franko:
TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

Martinm:
That's a meaningless statement unless TLOP does not fully determine my actions. If I have no choices at all, I can make no choices as to the state of the car. TLOP determines it all.

What does that mean? I thought you were a determinist? I thought you didn’t believe in “free will”? (A-Theist!)

TLOP is obviously the ultimate controller of the action. Unless you are claiming your “consciousness” somehow has “magic” control over the chemical processes occurring in your brain?

How does this make your Car more conscious then you? How does any of this makes TLOP less conscious then YOU? Your point eludes me …

The DM allows the Player to make choices, so there is no analogy at all.

That’s not really an answer to the question? Are you a determinist or NOT? Do you believe in “free will”, or do you just pretend NOT to, so the A-Theists can claim to have ONE member who isn’t a “free willyier”?

By your definitions, I'm agnostic.

Praise the Goddess! … Because … in all honesty … I’ve always liked you Martin! … plus … people I respect, have said good things about you.

I actually have no problem with that, so long as you're consistent.

We’re in enough hot water for the moment …

In a Universe where my actions are completely determined by TLOP, in what way am I superior to my car?

So are you claiming that you are no more conscious then your Car is? Try telling that to the Cop next time you get pulled over … let me know how it works out …

:rolleyes:

Martin, my friend ... I detect that you are too intelligent to repeat a big mistake twice, don't let dogma win over common sense.

3rd November 2002, 12:01 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

How many more thread hi-jackings must we suffer through? This absolute, maniacally ranting crank has succeeded in derailing yet another attempt at an informative discussion.

Should we not consider requesting a more acitve moderator role on JREF? As well as rules limiting the ability of an a**hole such as this one to hijack thread after thread?

The topic here was a request to understand formal logic. The thread hardly got off the ground before the idiot started his same old rant. It is boring. It is manical. He is crazed. He is nothing but an insulting, obscene, puny mind not even capable of understanding the topic under discussion.

But worse, he has no interest in understanding. His goal is to never be transfromed by knowledge. He goal is to never be confused by the facts.

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Cheers,

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 12:24 PM

Bill

I can understand your frustration but this is one thread surely which is actually not being hijacked - it may have gone down a road not intended by the a_u_p but it did so almost immediately, there was no attempt to police the thread by a_u_p so I can only assume the slight detour was ok by him.

So the irony is that it is you and I that appear to be thread jacking

Sou

Franko

3rd November 2002, 12:32 PM

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Hey!!! … So you are DOUBT??? BullyBoy!

The fact of the matter is … your ridiculous Religion has failed you. You can’t refute my arguments logically. So you are left screaming “Burn the Heretic!!! Burn his writings!!!! Ban his voice from our presence!!! The THOUGHT, the very Notion that someone else might read them and be turned away from the ONE TRUE FAITH OF A-THEISM is just driving you insane – isn’t it?

Begone Troll!

www.infidels.org

Go preach to the rest of the religious fanatics ... leave us Skeptics in peace.

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 12:33 PM

And you Frank just make things worse :rolleyes:

Sou

Franko

3rd November 2002, 12:39 PM

My apologies for daring to speak my mind.

I guess only A-Theists have that priviledge here?

3rd November 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette
Bill

So the irony is that it is you and I that appear to be thread jacking

Sou
Point taken, Sou,

So let us ask A_U_P. DId this conversation get hi-jacked? Did you not want to find out about logic? Were Franko's posts on your point, or did they detract from them?

Has this thread been hi-jacked?

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

Cheers,

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Point taken, Sou,

So let us ask A_U_P. DId this conversation get hi-jacked? Did you not want to find out about logic? Were Franko's posts on your point, or did they detract from them?

Has this thread been hi-jacked?

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

Cheers,

:eek: there are many pages on there - which page in particular do you want me to look at?

Why not just stick Frank on ignore? And only answer on topic for all threads?

I personally don't intend to do it - sometimes Frank engages with someone on an interesting level - like Billy Joe recently, Darat and Loki before that.

Also I'm appalling for staying on topic too:)

Sou

hammegk

3rd November 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

hammegk: Well, I admit it WAS your thread, but face it, hi-jack is complete.

The Question is "To Be, or not To Be" at the moment. A firm yes to "to be". How about you?

TTFN, catch ya on the flip side....

I "congratulate" myself? Franco? by stating a fact? The thread was gone for pages, sorry.

BTW, it's Mr. Hammy to you, *******. ;)

As a final thought have you actually seen an A_U_P topic that SHOULDN'T have been hijacked? :D

Franko

3rd November 2002, 02:29 PM

Blah blah blah A-Theism is the one true Faith -- all other Theists are idiots ... blah blah blah ...

That pretty much summarizes every single one of Bullyhoyt's posts I have ever read. What exactly does he think HE is contributing here?

There are 25 other A-Theists fanatics all chanting the same mantra. God forbid anyone should dare speak out against the sacred Orthodoxy!

Mossy

4th November 2002, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette

Why not just stick Frank on ignore? And only answer on topic for all threads?

Sou

Sou,

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.

Putting him on ignore doesn't make the threads any more coherent or interesting.

As for the idea, "it is up to the person who started the thread to police it" - doesn't work. Tried it several times, was even told to "**** off" by your witty friend (who isn't really an *******, he just does it for the reaction - right?).

-Ed

a_unique_person

4th November 2002, 05:00 AM

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it. JK might be a bit out there, but he sticks to predictable topics, and even says more than the same thing over and over. Carlos Sweat at least sticks to the one thread. Franko just dominates.

Victor Danilchenko

4th November 2002, 07:55 AM

Mossy

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.That's most definitely true. I've had Franko on "ignore" for a while, but I still keep seeing good threads go up in flames for no good reason. It's not even entertaining -- it's just dull and boring and repetitious. I imagine there is only so many ways others can reply creatively to the same old regurgitated inanity.

Victor Danilchenko

4th November 2002, 07:58 AM

a_unique_person

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it.Ditto. I very much believe in giving people second chances, but the welcome Franko received upon his return made me think that some rosy-colored-glasses manufacturer out there is making a killing.

Come on, people, we are supposed to be rational and realistic, right?.. Franko has made his nature quite clear. If he changes, I wanna see the evidence of change before proclaiming my joy at his return.

Franko

4th November 2002, 08:37 AM

A-un-unique-a-theist cried:

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it.

Poor Baby! … if only everyone thought exactly like you and little Vicky D. the world would “truly” be a better place!

Damn the stupid idiots who are too moronic to see that you and Vicky claim to be Superior! If only everyone followed the “One True Faith”!

Alas

Perhaps you should try a different venue where everyone shares your same religious ideals … ?

www.infidels.org

This is a Skeptics board after all.

Franko

4th November 2002, 08:42 AM

Mosshead,

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.

Hey its not my fault that people ask me questions. Most of my posts are responses to another posters post. How often do I actually start a thread?

Putting him on ignore doesn't make the threads any more coherent or interesting.

Coming from a guy who had trouble comprehending the 3 little pigs it doesn’t really surprise me that you have difficulty following along.

As for the idea, "it is up to the person who started the thread to police it" - doesn't work. Tried it several times, was even told to "**** off" by your witty friend (who isn't really an *******, he just does it for the reaction - right?).

What a hypocrite! Is that your way of demonstrating what a nice guy YOU are??? Gee, I with an attitude like that, I wonder why I treat you like the little sh*t that your are?

Fact is Mossy, you follow me around and respond to far more of My posts, then I do to yours. Personally, it’s a rare occasion that you say anything worthy of a response.

BTW – I’ve never had any trouble policing my threads. Maybe you are just a wimp?

Q-Source

4th November 2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Cheers,

BillHoyt,

I found in the front page of the Forum at least EIGHT threads started with the name of FRANKO on it or with a straight reference to him by the creator of the thread.
You can check:

Logical Creationism
An Introduction to formal logic
Franko's thermodinamics
Franko and Deism.org
Fallacy of Composition
Regarding Franko
Are the laws of physics....?
Enough! I refuse to debate...

And guess who started them? Titanpoint, Fool, Whitefolk, exactly the same people who complains or want him out of the forum.
Don't you think that you should ask them no to start so many threads about this guy?.

I agree with you, I also think that it is too much about the same, but it depends on everybody to diversify this forum with other topics.

I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Q-S

Edited to change "and" for "or"

4th November 2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Q-S

Please join us on JREF banter to discuss this situation. Otherwise, we will have helped frankenfruit hi-jack yet another thread.

Cheers,

Kullervo

4th November 2002, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

...Whitefolk, exactly the same people who complains and want him out of the forum.

Careful, there. I have never requested anyone to be banned, nor have I wished them to leave. And I didn't start the Fallacy of Composition thread as an attack on Franko (yeah, I know it sounds implausible, but believe me. I'm just crazy about symbolic logic. It's like a fetish). Sorry, just needed to vent for a minute.

That's FORK, by the way. :)

Franko

4th November 2002, 10:28 AM

Q-Source,

I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Quite reasonable Darling. I will make an effort in the future.

MRC_Hans

4th November 2002, 01:23 PM

I notice that half the threads Franko has "hijacked", are actually about him. Cant really blame him for that IMHO. But it takes at least two to hijack a thread: One to provoke, and one or more to let themselves be provoked. As long as we have been answering why should Franko stop posting?

Hans

Tricky

4th November 2002, 03:21 PM

Well, I've been waiting patiently for Franko to answer these, but that seems unlikely, so I'd like to try my hand. I have never studied formal logic either, but this is the kind of puzzle I like.

Originally posted by whitefork
Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

Valid or invalid? Show your work. Remember, both premises and the conclusion are true, and the terms in the conclusion appear in the premises, and there is "flow".
Conclusion is invalid. It could be that all Muslim terrorists are of some nationality other than Saudi. The sets do not necessarily overlap.

Originally posted by whitefork
An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.
Invalid. Although all items with covers, pages and bindings are books, not all books have these traits (books on tape, for example ;))

Originally posted by whitefork
An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

Invalid (convoluted version of last question). Although all items with covers, pages and bindings are books, there is no statement as to what things without these traits can be. They may or may not also be books.

How'd I do?

Peter Soderqvist

5th November 2002, 01:33 AM

Some Saudis are Muslims, Some Muslims are terrorists, Some Saudis are terrorists.

Soderqvist1: This sequence is truth in a fictional world there all humans are Saudis, but in our real world, it is quite possible that some Saudis are terrorists, for instance Usama Bin laden. But Saudis and terrorists are not a symmetrical relation there, because at least the IRA terrorists are not Saudis, therefore, some terrorists are not Saudis. Aristotelian logic is proper to use when it comes to symmetrical relations, for instance, number 5 belongs to the set of odd numbers, but not at all to the set of even numbers, but most relation in our world are not symmetrical, because Terrorists and Saudis doesn't always belong to the same set, or simply; it is a kind of fuzzy relation between them, and it follows from that, that we need fuzzy logic, when we deal with our real world, because the Aristotelian binary logic cannot deal with fuzzy values, but fuzzy logic can always deal with the Aristotelian binary values, or in simpler terms; two valued logic cannot deal with many values, but many valued logic can deal with two values.

Fuzzy Logic by Bart Kosko and Satoru Isaka
The binary logic of modern computers often falls short when describing the vagueness of the real world. Fuzzy logic offers more graceful alternatives. At the heart of the difference between classical and fuzzy logic is something Aristotle called the law of the excluded middle. In standard set theory, an object either does or does not belong to a set. There is no middle ground: the number five belongs fully to the set of odd numbers and not at all to the set of even numbers. In such bivalent sets, an object cannot belong to both a set and its complement set or to neither of the sets. This principle preserves the structure of logic and avoids the contradiction of an object that both is and is not a thing at the same time. Sets that are fuzzy, or multivalent, break the law of the excluded middle- to some degree. Items belong only partially to a fuzzy set. They may also belong to more than one set. Even to just one individual, the air may feel cool, just right and warm to varying degrees. Whereas the boundaries of standard sets are exact, those of fuzzy sets are curved or taper off, and this curvature creates partial contradictions. The air can be 20 percent cool-and at the same time, 80 percent not cool.

Fuzzy degrees are not the same as probability percentages, a point that has eluded some critics of the field. Probabilities measure whether something will occur or not. Fuzziness measures the degree to which something occurs or some condition exists. The statement "There is a 30 percent chance the weather will be cool" conveys the probability of cool weather. But The morning feels 30 per- cent cool" means that the air feels cool to some extent-and at the same time, just right and warm to varying extents. The only constraint on fuzzy logic is that an object's degrees of membership in complementary groups must sum to unity. If the air seems 20 percent cool, it must also be 80 percent not cool. In this way, fuzzy logic just skirts the bivalent contradiction-that something is 100 percent cool and 100 percent not cool-that would destroy formal logic The law of the excluded middle holds merely as a special case in fuzzy logic, namely when an object belongs 100 percent to one group.

The modern study of fuzzy logic and partial contradictions had its origins early in this century, when Bertrand Russell found the ancient Greek paradox at the core of modern set theory and logic. According to the old riddle, a Cretan asserts that all Cretans lie. So, is he lying? If he lies, then he tells the truth and does not lie. If he does not lie, then he tells the truth and so lies. Both cases lead to a contradiction because the statement is both true and false. Russell found the same paradox in set theory. The set of all sets is a set, and so it is a member of itself. Yet the set of all apples is not a member of itself because its members are apples and not sets. Perceiving the underlying contradiction, Russell then asked, "Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself ?" If it is, it isn't; if it isn't, it is. Faced with such a conundrum, classical logic surrenders.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/fuzzylog.html

Soderqvist1: Btw, our world is not an additive affair, because when we add two poisons together like sodium, and chlorine, we will not end up with some double poisonous mixture, because chemical interaction between these compounds, will give us something not poisonous, namely; salt! ;)

Titanpoint

5th November 2002, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I notice that half the threads Franko has "hijacked", are actually about him.

That's inaccurate. There have been a few (in comparison) which name him specifically. The fact is that his spamming is designed to get all of the them to be about him.

Cant really blame him for that IMHO. But it takes at least two to hijack a thread: One to provoke, and one or more to let themselves be provoked.

Again, is it the behavior of one troll that is the problem or the behavior of naturally-inquisitive people? What is the R&P forum for if not to question things?

As long as we have been answering why should Franko stop posting?

Hans

Unfortunately Hans, Franko has become both cause and effect.

TP

CWL

5th November 2002, 03:45 AM

Well it is a sad thing. I was one of the people who welcomed Franko back after his disappearing act. I was hoping for some open and honest debate. Unfortunately I was disappointed.

Franko, although obviously capable of intellectual thought, is also obviously stuck within his own dogmatic frame. He is unable to accept any alternative standpoints.

He is unique on this forum in that he claims to hold "the Truth". Yet he is unable to prove or explain it.

There is no point in trying to debate anyone holding a sermon.

Sad thing.

MRC_Hans

5th November 2002, 03:58 AM

Unfortunately Hans, Franko has become both cause and effect. I'm not trying to remove blame from Franko, although it might seem so. The way he has acted lately, he's a genuine PITA. What I'm trying to say is that we should take a look in the mirror as well. But maybe we should stop this discussion; the less attention -----

Hans

Peter Soderqvist

5th November 2002, 04:24 AM

TO FRANKO

Franko wrote on page 2, 10-31-2002 04:29 PM: 2 + 2 = 4 demonstrate the validity of that whitehead ... I suspect there is an invisible flaw point it out for us!!!

Soderqvist1: This is an abstract truth, because mathematics deals only with undefined terms, but it is not always truth in the real world, namely, 2-liter water + 2-liter alcohol is not 4-liter, because chemical reaction between these compounds will give us a mixture little less than 4-liter. But if we add 2 apples and 2-apples together, its weights has the approximated additive value, because the weight will rise additively when we add apples together, but its temperature is not an additive affair, because the apples' temperature have not been risen. But the opposite is more truth, when we add nitro to glycerin! :D

Is it truth that; if B is brother to S, is S also brother to B? Not always; because S is sometimes sister to B! ;)

Quotations by Albert Einstein
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Quoted in J R Newman, The World of Mathematics (New York 1956).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 07:32 AM

(this is not an attack on anyone)

Nice work Trickster, you got it.

Let's see.

This thread is called An Introduction to Formal Logic.
I posed a couple of questions about validity, and you answered them correctly.

For the purposes of getting this back on track, I'll complete the drill.

1. Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

This is well-formed, but the so-called MIDDLE TERM (Muslims) is not "distributed" among subject and predicate. Venn diagrams (the "Ballentine Ale" symbol - 3 overlapping circles) would show this clearly but I don't know how to put them up here. What is means is that the set which is the intersection of Saudis and Terrorists may be null under the premisses (point being, all the terrorists, may in fact be non-saudis under the premisses).

I disagree that non-Aristotlean logic is required to solve this. It may be able to, but the fallacy has been known since the beginning and is easily dealt with by traditional methods. (Sorry Peter)

LW gave the equivalent Predicate Calculus demonstration elsewhere.

No Syllogism of the SOME, SOME, SOME variety is ever valid.

2. An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.

Form If A then B.
B
Therefore A

Fallacy of affirming the consequent. Always invalid (Use of truth tables demonstrates that the conclusion can be false while the premisses are true - the definition of implication (if, then)

T implies T = true
T implies F = false
F implies T = true
F implies F = true

Hence, if you can demonstrate a condition where the conclusion is false and the premisses are true, you have an invalid argument. Conversely if assuming the falsity of the conclusion leads to a contradiction, the argument is valid (reductio).

For instance - this is hard to grasp but....

IF Today is November 5
AND Today is November 6

Then I am the emperor of China.

Assume that I am not the emporer of China.
By our assumptions, today is both November 5 and not November 5.
Since the assumption (I am NOT, etc) leads to a contradiction, we must conclude the negation of that assumption.

What this means is that from CONTRADICTORY premisses, anything at all follows.

(one point of the truth function of implication - false premisses implying a false conclusion has a truth value of TRUE)

Opposite side of the coin - any premise at all implies a tautology (statement that is always true). In the truth function of implication, when the conclusion is TRUE, the implication is always true, regardless of the whether the premisses are true or false.

3. An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

If A then B
not A
Therefore not B

Denying the antecedant. Always invalid.

4. All US presidents are native born Americans
Some Catholics are native born Americans
Therefore some Catholic was a US president.

In this case, we also have a Middle term (native born american) that has not been distributed, etc.

But wait! This one is valid:

All native born Kansans are Americans.
Some Catholics are native born Kansans
Therefore some Catholics are Americans

(Middle term (Kansans) distributed)

I will not belabor this by giving all the rules for validity. See this site if you care http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

I have beaten this thing to death by now, but my point is real simple.
If some argument of form X has true premisses and a true conclusion, we must not conclude that all arguments of Form X have a true conclusion when the premisses are true.

The rules of classical syllogism have been restated in the form of predicate logic (that thing where (x) means "for all x" and the backwards-E x means "for at least one x").

I personally prefer the syllogistic approach because it doesn't require the intimidating math-like symbols, and has a nice, intuitive feel to it that is sometimes deceptive.

All examples given here sound a little bit reasonable since they contain true statements, but not one of them is valid. The logical flaws can only be exposed by looking beyond the semantics (meaning) of the terms and seeing the underlying formalism.

Fork go back to work now.

thank you.

Tricky

5th November 2002, 08:04 AM

Thank you, Whitefork. That was a better explanation of formal logic than I have ever heard before. I have a feeling I may want to read a little more on this.

Willy

5th November 2002, 08:33 AM

Peter Soderqvist,

2 + 2 = 4 having an "invisible flaw" was sarcasm. I think you missed the point ... ;)

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 08:37 AM

You must not get out much....
Problem with formal logic is that it's generally given a dry-as-dust presentation, and it doesn't have to be that way. If you can dress up the formalism in normal language, it's more fun. I keep pushing Pospesel's Arguments: Deductive Logic Exercises because it has examples, valid and invalid, from everyday discourse.

In my opinion, if one doesn't have a solid grasp of the bare basics of logic, there's absolutely no point in discussing guys like Cantor and Godel, because one will not understand what they're arguing about. Godel in particular is so susceptible to misinterpretation that as soon as I hear the name brought into a discussion, I assume that the speaker is about to emit a huge cloud of smoke. Formal undecidability is about formalism. The paper after all is called "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems."

That's why I flog the formalism hobbyhorse all the time.

Oh, yeah, I gave a "proof" of 2+2=4 on page 3 of the Logical Deism thread. (do a find on SUCCESSOR).

Victor Danilchenko

5th November 2002, 09:46 AM

Whitefork

i disagree with you on the utility of classical logic. In order for classical logic to be useful for examining the sorts of things you are examining, you have to bring in set theory. You can do so intuitively and thus not appear to complicate things, but it is well-known that "intuitive" set theory is inconsistent.

therefore, i think predicate logic is much better for such things, as many of the implicit set operations in boolean argument are replaced with well-defined quantifiers; and you don't have to use the intimidating symbols -- "FORALL" of "F" work just as well as "∀", and "EXISTS" or "E" work as well as "∃". besides, "forall" and "exists" are pretty comprehensible intuitively as well.

In fact, speaking about the flaws of classical logic... I was going to bring up a point that your earlier examples were unclear -- when you say "An object ... is a book", do you mean that some such objects are books, or all such objects are books? Simply having to frame your arguments in predicate-logic terms automatically does away with such ambiguity and imprecision.

Oh yeah, quick addition for others:

predicate logic is a powerful superset of boolean (AKA classical) logic; in fact, when you hear a mathematician or a logician speak about "logic", they will be usually speaking about predicate logic; it's the logical system to know. preedicate logic comes in multiple orders, and the first-order predicate logic (AKA simple "first-order logic") is just like boolean logic, with addition of two operators, called "quantifiers" -- universal quantifier ("forall" = "F" = ∀) and existential quantifier ("exists" = "E" = ∃). Predicate logic also allows you to specify predicates (additional operators), and the "orders" of predicate logic are distinguished by how and what sort of operators can be defined.

I will use alphabetic symbols, since the proper symbols (∀ and ∃) will not render correctly in all browsers. Also, "~" means logical negation.

Fx C(x)->M(x)
means "For all x, C(x) implies M(x)" -- for example, "all cats are mammals" ("for all x, x being a cat implies x being a mammal"), where "M(x)" means "x is a mammal" and C(x) means "x is a cat".

Ey M(y)
means "There exists x such that M(x) is true" -- for example, "some entities are mammals".

Quantifiers can be stacked:

FxEy y=x+1
means "For all x, exists y such that y=x+1"; this is a statement of infinitude of integers.

see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic for more info.