Whence comes logic

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    No point, I'm asking a question.
    My question was where I failed and if you could explain it to me. Apparently, you can't.
    If it is not news to you why are you telling me I am not using good science?
    IOW, you can't answer my simple question. So why are you telling me to come back with good science when you claim an abundance of knowledge, but use general ignorance on the subject yourself to avoid answering my question. Tut, tut....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    p.s. one of these days I will have to pin you down explaining where my posits are lacking in research and credibility with my quoted excerpts from mainstream science.

    I don't have to know everything, all I need to know is where to look. I was hoping that at the very least you could direct me to "good science" on the subject, but alas you're just as stupid on the subject as I, seems to me....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    OTOH, you claim authority, yet you fail to explain a lot of things and glibly avoid some difficult questions yourself, usually by accusing the other poster of incompetence. Is that logical?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I wasn't talking to you.
    I was responding to arfa brane.

    So, you seem insane enough to pretend we're having a conversation?

    Your posts are invariably nonsensical, that's why I usually don't have anything to say about whatever to rave about.

    Please, do me a favour, just ignore me.
    EB
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    Allow me to enlighten you. Because regardless who's logic it is, the effectiveness of all logic depends on the premise it is build on. Garbage in > Garbage out . That should sound familiar to you......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    There isn't anything in any of your posts to understand though.

    So far, you got nothin', and it looks a lot like you're trying to make it look like you do got somethin'. Pony up, dude, what the hell are we discussing?
    Or are you going to keep playing your intentionally obscure to the point of impenetrable game?
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    Exactly. So don't attempt to invoke it and expect to be understood.

    That's why I was asking you for specific examples of "Nature itself". And you got all facey.
     
  9. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    ???
    I said here there's no scientific definition.
    That's not to say there's no definition of nature or that we don't know what we are talking about when we talk about nature.
    Tell me if you don't understand the English of it.
    EB
     
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,367
    Didn't Aristotle say male baldness was the result of too much sex?
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    You're still dodging. You've been asked several times for examples that we can talk to.

    There are too many people on this forum who don't have the courage of their convictions, and would rather simply argue to a standstill than actually take a stand and defend it.

    SP is doing this here. He makes an assertion with a deliberately vague term "nature itself" when asked for a specific example of something that defies logic. Then he turns around and acknowledges that his own term is not useful to the discussion.

    That doesn't result in the argument stalling, it simply means that his assertion has not been made. Other assertions still stand.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    I believe he posed it as a triangular problem.
    "Bald people are either great thinkers or great lovers. Then there are people who just think they are great lovers."..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,367
    Testosterone wasn't in Aristotle's vocabulary to make a logical judgment, however.

    Or, one that would have any meaning whatsoever.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    If you don't understand what the term "nature" means in the English language for the overwhelming majority of English native speakers, there sure is no conversation I could be interested in having with you.
    Second, as I already said, I didn't make any claim to be argued about. I mentioned my belief on a particular point in the coure of a conversation with only one poster, conversation which was itself a derail. If you want to argue about this, start a new thread. So, please, stop this pathetic grandstanding. This is just embarrassing.
    EB
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    And yet, you yourself can't provide an example that can be talked to.

    Well, you did.

    OK. Beliefs don't require defending. You would have done better to say that you had no defense up front, instead spending a page of posts trying to defend it.

    That's not how internetting works.

    But I did not mean to embarrass you.
     
  16. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    You're just getting patheticer and patheticer.
    Then grow up and quote me.
    I didn't spend any post defending it since I'm not interested in having any debate with you. Your posts on this subject have just confirmed how useless that would be. You're only interested in making cheap points that are irrelevant to this thread. This is just pestering for no good reason.
    ???
    Well, you are definitely an embarrassment.
    EB
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    OK:
    .

    #106, #115, #125, #128, #132, #133 for examples.

    But in particular #139, where you say:
    but are now back-peddling to:
    So, OK, you made an assertion, and when questioned about it, you couldn't defend the ill-defined terms. And you've come about to recognizing it was a belief that you don't really want to discuss. I can accept that.

    Here's a tip: Truths don't require emotions, insults or outrage. You'll find that defensible facts are quite happy in - in fact, prefer - the arena of rational, civil discussion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
    Write4U likes this.
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    It's just a statement of facts.
    No. I mean I wasn't talking to you.
    No wait. I mean it's simply my belief.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  19. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Here is the whole piece. It's much more interesting than anything you've said about it.
    I did't even try to argue my claim. It was a statement of fact, if you understand what that is. And as it wasn't any argument, I have no reason to defend any argument, as you suggested I had. You're making a lot a misleading statements about what I say and that does do you any favour.
    I'm not. No evidence of that. You're making a lot a misleading statements about what I say and that does do you any favour.
    So, let me repeat: I fail to see any physical structures that really correspond to that of logic. In fact, our logic is literally falsified by nature. Think of any implication and see how it doesn't hold in the natural world. Logic is properly a mental process for processing the data coming through our perception senses. Logic isn't about the universe. It's about the data our brain process. The brain would keep carrying out the same logical process even if isolated from the universe.
    And I stand by that. See? You're wrong again.
    I stand by my claim and I won't argue it. You seem to be under the illusion that people want to argue everything they say. Well, you can always hope. If I had wanted to argue about this claim, I would have started a thread. And I didn't. It was a claim in the course of a conversation with a poster, something of a derail.
    More misrepresentation of the fact. That I didn't want to argue my claim but I could. So, you're wrong again. You're making a lot a misleading statements about what I say and that does do you any favour.
    Here is mine. Don't make up stuff. When you don't know something, don't pretend you do. You're making a lot a misleading statements about what I say and that does do you any favour.
    EB
     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    That's completely flawed.

    If a brain was isolated would it still be a brain? What would it process if there was no input? For a non-isolated brain, is the data it processes independent from the universe, or is it, logically, the universe according to a brain?
    But there are all these humans around, with brains . . . ?
    Absolutely false. We build computers out of natural things, which then falsify our logic . . . ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    Brain in a vat?
    Or confirm our logic.
    Cern confirmed the logic behind the mathematics of explicating the Higgs boson.

    Most cosmologists report universal practical logical confirmation of their theories. One cosmologist even stated: "If we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely, the universe will give us the answer."

    IMO, this means that the universe understands the logic of our mathematics we employ in asking the question and if we posed the question with the correct maths, its expressed answer can be observed and translated back into our maths and confirm if we are on the right track.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    Try the following algorithm:
    1. Design a computer
    2. Build a computer, given the design as input
    3. Turn the computer on

    Finally, describe the physical objects which falsify your logic.
     
  23. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Are you saying you don't understand the idea of isolating a brain from its environment. Close your eyes, shut your ears. Aren't you able to think, even logically? You think a computer can't work if it's isolated from its input ports?
    Why ever not? A car that is at a standstill is still a car, I would hope.
    Otherwise, prove it isn't.
    The data it has memorised.
    Both. I hope you realise it is obviously both.
    Sorry, don't count on me to finish your sentences if you can't be bothered to finished them yourself.
    Yes, they do. And it can only be so. Our brain isn't anything magical. It's a compromise between space, time and energy. Very, very, very efficient but nothing like perfect. That's just common sense. No big deal.
    EB
     

Share This Page