An introduction to formal logic

[Franko]

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]

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

 

[Martin]

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]

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 …

 

[whitefork]

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]

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.

 

[whitefork]

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]

(Not that Franko would pay up.)

 

[whitefork]

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

where do you think unemployed logicians end up anyway?

 

[Martin]

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]

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

Nor is it meant to...

 

[whitefork]

Nor is it meant to...

Of course. How could I be so dense?

 

[Franko]

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]

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]

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

 

[whitefork]

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?

 

[whitefork]

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]

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]

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]

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.