All statements represent things that are physical. All those who disagree, try to make one statement that is outside things that are physical. Then make a succinct formal argument proving why it represents something that is non-physical. I will, or anyone who can, will then prove you wrong with a formal logic argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please make the argument formal. For example, I love cookies. Cookies are pastries. Therefore, I love at least one kind of pastry.
I love cookies. Cookies are pastries. Pastries are figments of my imagination. My imagination is non-corporeal. Therefore, so are pastries. (I love the immaterial)
All statements represent things that are physical. The above is a statement. It represents a concept Concepts are not physical Therefore the above statement is false
All events of the consciousness have the property ‘interaction’. All things that have the property ‘interaction’ have the property ‘take up space’. All things that ‘take up space’ are physical. Concepts are events of the consciousness. Therefore, concepts are physical.
Collision, What are 'events of the consciousness'? Why do you say these events have the property 'interaction' and what does that mean?
What space does beauty require? Love? What about satisfaction. In what space does it exist? How about math? Where does math exist? I don't see an argument to make. It's imaginary. It's an abstract contruct. Abstract constructs are imaginary. Since I can utilize abstract constructs, they are real and not physically based in the sense that you use it. They are physically based in the sense that some chemical conditions in the brain must be reflective of the current state of abstract utilization, but they are not physically based in topic.
I wanted to make this thread unique to philosophic logic. So, be a sport, use formal argumentation Southstar and wesmorris. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even 'philosophic logic' argues from explained and stated premises. What use is it to argue against something you don't understand?
Please, a formal argument. Is this too much to ask? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're looking for a syllogism I think. If so then you're looking for informal and not formal logic. Formal logic is composed of all those bloody equations. If I'm correct and you're looking for syllogisms then you need to make it clear that the truth of the premises isn't important, that it's the structure of the argument that is at the centre of the inquiry. Major premise, minor premises, conclusion follows from the premises, that sort of thing. Socrates was a fish - it can be proven Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No - too difficult for me given the constraints set Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thought is real Physical is conciousness Concioussness is thought Thought is electricity Electricity is real Therefore, I have forgotten what my point was and will again, like many others, go of on tangents like the infinte structure of time.
