Leontiskos

I think we are running up against a terminus problem. For example, you said, "they are born with one and die with that same consciousness." The questi...

In your opinion arrows do not connote directionality? Do you think there is a reason logicians introduced the inference A?B over and above the conjunc...

The solution you have arrived at is the idea that ¬(A?B) means, "A without B," and therefore (A?B) means "Not(A without B)." This misplaces the negati...

I sympathize with these points. Logical systems should be a tool of reasoning and not something we outsource our thinking to. This is a task that any ...

If the idea here is, "It's not necessarily a good translation, but it's the best we have," then I would ask why it is better than the standard, "If A ...

Actually, yes, I think they would. People tend to understand that arrows signify directionality, in the sense of starting point ? destination. Sure: 2...

Sure, and in English is to say A without saying anything about the value of B to say A without B? It would seem so. Would anyone interpret "Not A with...

Ah, okay, I see where you are coming from now. It seems like a strange interpretation: Aaron: "Not A without B" Benjamin: "Not A" Caleb: "B" Daniel: "...

's "I never said's" confirm what I took from your response. It's like you were responding to a different post, and this seems to happen a lot in these...

Hmm, okay. Sure, but going back to my contention that this question is not adjudicable, if someone claims that an essential change like this has taken...

I think this is correct and well put. :up:

I think this is simply incorrect. Again: <"Not A without B" does not preclude ¬A> is a different proposition than <If ¬A is true, "Not A without B" is...

So if someone can no longer recognize their family you would say that their " has changed accidentally to a small extent." What then would be an examp...

A month ago I was talking about the implications of interpreting (B?¬B) as 'FALSE' and all I received were superficial objections from the very people...

- Eh... Let's try this: Part of the meaning of A?B is (1) No part of the meaning of "Not A without B" is (1) Therefore, "Not A without B" does not tra...

Sure, and that's not what I was saying. A scientist need not be interested in the whole of the natural world to be interested in the natural world. I'...

Okay, so we have: "¬A being true means A?B is true" "Not A without B" What I am saying is that knowledge of (2) does not give us knowledge of (1), and...

- The question is not whether ¬A is allowed, but whether ¬A ? A?B.

I think you may have mixed up a bit of the verbiage there, but I think you are saying that «not A without B» prescinds from whether or not ¬A justifie...

This is a very commendable approach, but according to climate scientists ice cubes are preferred to water. I think that's a little much, though. Cold ...

The single word "science" is equally "filled out" by our understanding of the term. A definition presupposes that one does not understand the term. Su...

I think people want to share their ideas and they want to profit by their ideas, at the same time. If the latter is not possible then philosophy is on...

I suppose it is worth asking whether these are the same two inferences, and whether the first is any more "directional" than the second: (A?B) A ? B ¬...

So I think you are overstating this idea. Conditionals have a directionality that partially mimics causality. Meta-logically, they are intended to sup...

If I am right then it is very likely gibberish in logic as well. It is at least clear that no one knows what it is supposed to really mean. I'm still ...

Yep, I think this is right, and it's what I was trying to get at on the first page. I think my point about "denying without affirming a propositional ...

Right. When "science" undermines realism it undermines itself, and those who do not notice this live in an alternate reality where their perceptions a...

Introducing some of the insights from 's <thread>, I would say that the creators of classical propositional logic intended to create a system where co...

Thanks for bringing it back to the beginning, which is what I was also trying to do in my last post. This is what we were just talking about on page 8...

To bring this full circle, consider your post which started us off on this long trek: Or, "((A?B)?(A?¬B)) and (A?(B?¬B)) are the same formula." Now it...

So then why is it that the logic cannot capture the English, "A does not imply B"? Is it because the English represents a denial without any correspon...

Assertions, assertions, and more assertions. And when asked to provide substantiation, you fly like a little bird, even when one goes ahead and does t...

- So many of your posts evidence a strong desire to avoid serious philosophical engagement at all costs, but then every so often you make a real contr...

Right. We see that the thing that we are interested in is the same thing they are engaged in, namely rational deliberation and a search for something ...

- Deflection yet again.

See the response I gave:

You've pulled a 180! Earlier you literally rejected my characterization of the argument as a modus tollens and said: After you decried that you wanted...

- Perhaps. I am thinking of the example that Janus gave elsewhere. P: Lizards are purple S: Lizards are smarter (P?¬S) "P does not imply S" I think th...

- How is the logical statement different from the English statement «A does not imply B»? If B is always false whenever A is true, then surely «A does...

Is there something wrong with: (A?¬B)? (This is why I added a parenthetical edit to my last post, which is about the OP of the other thread.) Yes, for...

The oddity is that there is not parity between a conditional and its negation: A?B ¬(A?B) A conditional, by its very name, signifies that which is not...

Yes, but for some there is a great deal to be gained by a misunderstanding.

- That's fair. I was trying to elaborate the general principle of my first quote. "Letting someone off" requires some variety of involuntariness, and ...

In a primarily inferential system like classical propositional logic some can be derived and some cannot (i.e. some rules of inference are technically...

On the contrary, see: And:

Okay, but even with that distinction in hand we could still ask what it is about understanding deliberative beings that predisposes us to love them. I...

So do you then see my claim about wood as 'dogmatic'? I think we need a more precise definition of what you mean by the word 'soul'. You use three dif...

First, this is not a derivation of RAA. It is a putative modus tollens that looks a little bit like an RAA. As I said, there are analogical similariti...

I'll invite you to derive RAA from MT as a way to engage with what I've already written.

This is interesting in the way that it illustrates the shift from the individual emphasis to the social emphasis. Guilt is universally recognized as a...