An introduction to formal logic

[Franko]

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.

 

[whitefork]

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

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

About that truth table?

 

[Franko]

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?

 

[whitefork]

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]

2 + 2 = 4

demonstarte the validity of that whitehead ...

I suspect there is an invisible flaw

point it out for us!!!

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

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.

 

[whitefork]

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.

 

[whitefork]

2 + 2 = 4 is not an argument.

 

[Franko]

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 …

 

[whitefork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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

 

[CWL]

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]

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]

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

Back to the drawing board Franko.

 

[Franko]

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]

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?