Proof of logic

JetLeg said:
For example, ad hominem - how do you prove that is a fallacy?
Click to expand...

Well, if the ad hominem was a valid argument in this reality then by merely calling you an idiot then I could prove that you will agree with me in the next sentence. You would be unable to avoid this consequence.

So - does attacking people change reality?

If yes answer: "ad hominem is a valid argument."

If no answer: "ad hominem is not a valid argument."

And add this to your set of fallacies.
 
OK. How do you evelauate this argument for example :


An indian wiseman has a certain doctrine. His doctrine is that that our Atman is actually are a part of the cosmic Brahman. Also, he predicts that when one should meditate on this truth, he will become extraordinarily happy. He does it. Other people meditate on this doctrine. The results are as he predicted, certified by brain scans. Does it proof that our Atman is actually a part of the cosmic Brahman?
 
Does it proof that our Atman is actually a part of the cosmic Brahman?
Click to expand...

Without existential referrents that is just a meaningless jumble of symbols comprised from the Latin alphabet.
 
No, you will have to go to the indian wise man and ask him what he means by it...
 
JetLeg said:
No, you will have to go to the indian wise man and ask him what he means by it...
Click to expand...

So I can get another set of meaningless symbols in another arbitrary language relating to the mental processes of another man whose symbols may or may not relate to meaningful existential referrents?

At some ponit JetLeg somebody is actually gonig to have to point at an actually 'thing' before the 'word' means anything at all. Otherwise you are not much better than Eliza which has no concept of what English means to a human because it has no concept of what the external world we live in is like.
 
cyborg said:
So I can get another set of meaningless symbols in another arbitrary language relating to the mental processes of another man whose symbols may or may not relate to meaningful existential referrents?

At some ponit JetLeg somebody is actually gonig to have to point at an actually 'thing' before the 'word' means anything at all. Otherwise you are not much better than Eliza which has no concept of what English means to a human because it has no concept of what the external world we live in is like.
Click to expand...

Would you agree at least that you have proven the symbols "Atman is Brahman" to be true, whatever they mean?
 
cyborg said:
I say 2-1 = 3.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. Proof via apples. But does it relate to the indian man?


A proof via apples : I take two apples, and then eat one. Count the number. Result is not 3.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
Would you agree at least that you have proven the symbols "Atman is Brahman" to be true, whatever they mean?
Click to expand...

Not unless you want to agree that until it's liked to it those labels have got nothing to do with our reality. In which case I'll be happy to entertain it is 'true' - as meaningless as that is.
 
cyborg said:
Not unless you want to agree that until it's liked to it those labels have got nothing to do with our reality. In which case I'll be happy to entertain it is 'true' - as meaningless as that is.
Click to expand...

Apples - edited in post above.

Indian man - sorry, I don't understand you.
What other hipothesis can you bring for the happiness of this man, other than his own?
 
Apples - edited in post above.
Click to expand...

In my universe when 'I have two apples' and 'I eat one', 'I get three' is 'true'.

What other hipothesis can you bring for the happiness of this man, other than his own?
Click to expand...

Well JetLeg, if you accept that words in and of themselves have no meaning whatsoever but are merely placeholders - currency - for experiences then you have a start.

Next if you realise that post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) is a fallacy you can begin to see why simply constructing any explanation before hand and then saying it explains what happened afterwards is liable to be wrong.

(Which you don't do otherwise you would accept my explanation of Dancing Rainbows Enchantedly Ambling Meaningfully (DREAM for short) as an explanation for why you are able to reply to my post).

I could come up with an infinite number of hypotheses JetLeg since there are any number of things I could have said before hand - oh and what's this? Why, it appears that similar phenomena occur in other cultural idioms with different names and stories but with the same human psychological effect.

Well I guess I could go the post hoc ergo propter hoc route and simply accept that any 'explanation' given before hand constitutes a meaningful communication or I could try to formulate a consistent logic that applies to everyone regardless of the labels they choose to use.

Which one do you think I should do and why?
 
cyborg said:
In my universe when 'I have two apples' and 'I eat one', 'I get three' is 'true'.



Well JetLeg, if you accept that words in and of themselves have no meaning whatsoever but are merely placeholders - currency - for experiences then you have a start.

Next if you realise that post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) is a fallacy you can begin to see why simply constructing any explanation before hand and then saying it explains what happened afterwards is liable to be wrong.

(Which you don't do otherwise you would accept my explanation of Dancing Rainbows Enchantedly Ambling Meaningfully (DREAM for short) as an explanation for why you are able to reply to my post).

I could come up with an infinite number of hypotheses JetLeg since there are any number of things I could have said before hand - oh and what's this? Why, it appears that similar phenomena occur in other cultural idioms with different names and stories but with the same human psychological effect.

Well I guess I could go the post hoc ergo propter hoc route and simply accept that any 'explanation' given before hand constitutes a meaningful communication or I could try to formulate a consistent logic that applies to everyone regardless of the labels they choose to use.

Which one do you think I should do and why?
Click to expand...


Where does the indian man explanation has a post-hoc-ergo-proper-hoc fallacy? He stated beforehand, that due to realizing atman is brahman happiness is achieved, not after the meditation.
 
Where does the indian man explanation has a post-hoc-ergo-proper-hoc fallacy?
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

He stated beforehand, that due to realizing atman is brahman happiness is achieved, not after the meditation.
Click to expand...

That would kinda be the point. He stated ANY (literally ANY - do I need to explain this concept more fully?) explanation beforehand and then it was ACCEPTED afterwards merely by virtue of what he said was to occur afterwards occurring not because of a causal chain of deduction starting with the entities he named all the way to the effects they caused.

No, we just accept the etities he named exist based on the aftermath of some phenomena and that the preceeding statement had real meaning.

Work with me here, just go wild with your imagination.

If he had said in some other universe:

"If you synergise time management with cash flows then profit is achieved."

Would this explanation be better, worse, wrong, right, meaingful, meaningless: what? And more importantly WHY?
 
You mean that saying "we need to realize atman is brahman", is just the same as saying "we need to realize that boogie is shmoogie"?
 
Ok, don't you agree that this indian wise man could prove that "boogie is shmoogie" in such a way?
 
I can only refer back to my earlier statement:

Not unless you want to agree that until it's liked [sic - should be likened] to it those labels have got nothing to do with our reality. In which case I'll be happy to entertain it is 'true' - as meaningless as that is.
Click to expand...

You can prove anything using logic as they say. That's why it's important to choose the right one.
 
Ok, so why is this the choice of the wrong logic? It is a proof that "boogie is shmookie", whatever it means. We just have to ask the indian man for the meaning of the symbols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom