flannel jesus

Here's a fun syllogism in the style that Corvus likes: If he could find that denying the Antecedent is valid in his textbook, then it's true that it's...

then interpret it as an order, that's fine. If it's red, then the order is to drive away. If it's not red, then the order is to not drive away, appare...

I mean, even in English, "therefore" has most of the same meanings. As a consequnce, in conclusion, etc. It's totally understandable to go to the orig...

Yes no problem. I think your intuition was leading you in the right direction anyway, which is a good sign. Good logical intuition is valuable, becaus...

Have you tried reading his posts over and over again until you agree with him though? That's his recommendation.

not exactly, but almost, sort of. If you analyse the truth table of ~(p implies q) , it's only true when p is true and q is false. Which is the same t...

I actually think it's a great opportunity. What we have here is someone who is *perfectly* wrong - I dare say there's very few things that are more pr...

you're right, I should. Crunch crunch

Yes, that's what I was getting it when I was comparing it to a <-> b. If all instances of implication p->q also mean notp -> notq, then all p->q are r...

In Corvus world, there's only one way for the ground to get wet. That's the absurdity of taking p->q to imply notp -> notq - everything can only happe...

you'd have to convince him to first. He thinks that's Modus Ponens, and then insults people who look for sources about modus ponens to show that it's ...

is Descartes arguing about something so urgent? It doesn't feel urgent like that to me. I agree with the cogito, but someone like banno saying he isn'...

Whatever consciousness is must be "casual" in some sense, I totally agree.

if denying the Antecedent were valid, you could just prove it. You want to find these goofy exits to these conversations because you want to maintain ...

wait wait wait, you can be as insulting as you like, but if I say I don't like you slinging shit, I'm at fault because I used a naughty word? Dude, ju...

My point is clear, here's my non shit slinging point: You cannot logically go straight from p -> q to not p -> not q. If you're in a situation where p...

yes, please tell me the point without saying things like You seem to have read something about MP on the internet and been parroting about it Can you ...

Do you want to just sling shit or do you want to defend your use of modus ponens? I could waste your time talking about how you parrot nonsense until ...

Insisting that denying the Antecedent is something you can do because of modus ponens is absolutely like that. You ready to talk about it or what?

Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. Most of your explanations involve saying some nonsense about "logic can't involve con...

Right, so once again, unwilling to actually use logic to defend a point, read my posts over and over again until you agree with me, yada yada. Tale as...

You just said some random goofiness followed by an insult. Where's the logic ?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he probably doesn't agree with your reasoning there because (p implies q) implies (not p implies not q) is not...

I'm just saying, the bit about a <-> b is directed at me, not at you.

he was replying to me, not to you. He was asking me to prove something. He quoted you so I appreciate why you would think he was asking you.

those two quotes are about different things. Goodnight

I don't think it's trivial. It means denying the Antecedent, if applied as a universal rule, has genuinely absurd consequences.

That doesn't mean much, you can just have the right side on it's own and it's already valid. https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(t~4e)~5(t~5e) I'm not sure wh...

Yes, I slightly misstated the argument, as I said. (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) isn't itself equivalent to (t?e), it's equivalent to saying "if you have an implicaat...

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((t~5e)~5(~3t~5~3e))~5((t~5e)~5(t~4e)) I slightly misstated the argument. If (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) holds, as a general rule, then a...

I can prove it

I don't think anybody has that train of thought

Of course it's possible, it's equivalent to saying a <-> b, and there's many a and b for which that's true. But the cogito doesn't say a <-> b, it jus...

it's clear now, thank you. I did misread. See my last comment.

Oh, you know what, I get it now. He wasn't always formulating his argument like that, he did that mid conversation. That is of course a VALID argument...

I did say it wasn't easy - I was acknowledging the strong possibility that I misread. Can you please explain more what you mean by

It's not easy to see what you're saying here. It looks like you're saying (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) Is equivalent to saying (t?e) Or in other words, whenever you ...

this is (completely understandably) misunderstanding what he meant by negation there. Negation isn't the word he should use, I'm not even sure if ther...

your proof is treating (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) as a premise. He thinks it's ALWAYS true. He thinks for all statements t implies e, it's always true that not t i...

no, he would get caught up on the word "then" as a time signifier.

we know his first language isn't English, and we know he thinks "a therefore b" can only mean "a happened and then later b happened". He has more conf...

I don't think epiphenomenalism is a thing many people actually believe. It's mostly posited as a thought experiment, and like Solipsism, it's somethin...

I think he is acting in good faith, good-ish anyway, but that his grasp of English in certain areas isn't as good as he'd like it to be and he's too p...

Counting the seconds until corvus once again says "Read my posts over and over again until you accept that denying the Antecedent isn't a Fallacy", be...

That is a very unserious comment to make given what's been said I told you what I am convinced by, and I didn't say it was an incomplete thought.

you asked questions, got answers to your questions, and kept asking the same questions again. It's not a serious thing, you're clearly not being serio...

I feel like you're asking me a bunch of questions you already know the answers to. This whole "incomplete thought" "poem" line of questions. It doesn'...

Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't, and I'm sure when someone finally develops the very first ever model of how a soul might work, cognitive scientists ...

You don't follow what? That this poem is stated as concisely at possible for aesthetic purposes, but implies a more complete argument within? My thoug...

The stuff that's already been talked about. I must exist in order to think. I think. Therefore I am. I can be certain I'm thinking, and existing. The ...