Corvus

I haven't failed to find the book. I didn't even try to look at any book. P->Q then Not P -> Not Q Why is this fallacy?

As I made clear already I am not going to flick through a Logic book to whatever ... no. There are more important thing to do in life. If you cannot s...

It is not MP or MT which is important here. They are just tools. You seem to making out as if MP MT are some end point human race must achieve. The co...

Nope. You are wrong in your unfounded presumption again. I am not going to take out my logic books on my relaxing weekend time, just to prove what is ...

I cannot find the page relevant to this point in my logic books. I came home, sat down at the desk, and reviewed the whole point again. I still feel t...

Exactly :nerd: No wonder it didn't sound tightly logical necessity.

I am trying to focus on the discussion with without getting interrupted by the unusual requests and irrelevant posts.

Sorry but I am discussing this point with . Will get back to you after our discussion, if there is any more point for us to discuss on this particular...

I don't think you showed any arguments for it doesn't prove that, did you? Classic symbolic logic works by showing how the arguments transit from one ...

Please also understand the core problem here was proving whether "I think therefore I am." is logically correct. All the rest was just introduced as a...

No, it is nothing to be sad about. People disagree in the real world, and you must learn to accept it. We agree to disagree on the point, and that is ...

I have given you the full proof using both symbolic logic and ordinary language. If you can't see it, then that is fine. I don't feel there is a point...

I don't think it needs any more time wasting mate.

You have admitted that When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect. That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect. We didn...

All I can say is, if you are that bothered with something, please read my post again for proving why "Cogito ergo sum" is logically incorrect.

You obviously don't even understand what the core problem is. The core problem is proving "Cogito ergo sum" is correct or incorrect. It shows you are ...

Now it gives me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin...

You think therefore you exist? -> T (Assumption) P -> Q = T (assumption) When you stopped thinking, you don't exist? (jesus has admitted it is incorre...

I shall give a try as per time permits.

Please remember. The classic symbolic logic works on the forms only. No contents. I have several Logic books at home. And they all say the same thing....

This is the simplest logic. There is nothing much to it. Why you cannot see my point is beyond common sense. It gives me impression that if you were f...

In symbolic classic logic, the contents don't matter. It works purely on the format. So if you say, P-> Q Not P Then it must be Not Q There is no way ...

Sure, present your argument against it, if you have any. I must go and do some work. I will read it later.

Well, if you say it is incorrect, then you proved yourself, you think therefore you exist is incorrect too. That is a simple logic.

No it is not. You don't agree with that, is psychological. It is incorrect is factual.

Is it correct or incorrect?

Why do you refuse to answer to a simple question? You don't think, therefore you don't exist. ==> Is this correct?

Because you couldn't understand the most basic demo of logic, I had to ask you in ordinary language about the point. You change the subject, and refus...

You still refuse to answer. You are not an authentic interlocutor.

Don't change the subject. Please answer me. You don't think, therefore you don't exist?

Obviously you have not read a single Logic book, but are copying and pasting some internet info here. So I shall not try with logic. In simplest ordin...

You can use MP using negation too. Please read some introduction to Logic.

What is there to misunderstand? It is the simplest symbolic classic logic. Only thing is your trying to distort the truth even I have shown the cleare...

Sorry. I have already explained in most clear logical way with even the simplest symbolic logic Modus Ponens demo example. If you still cannot see it,...

Just been pointing out the problems. :nerd:

That is an irrational leap. It doesn't follow logically. If it is necessary you are for you think, then what is the point saying therefore you exist? ...

P --> Q ¬P ===== ¬Q Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist." A simplest symbolic logic bas...

The whole point is so simple, but you seem to be trying to make it complicated needlessly for some reason. The point is that you don't need to think t...

Was SJ a stoic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBgVg86q9iw

:grin: :pray: :pray:

If you still insist that "You think therefore you are." is correct, then when you were just born, and was not able to think, does it mean that you did...

I have no idea what's your fascination with logical necessity, and keep repeating yourself with the term here. The point is that is not relevant to yo...

A mere fact that you don't know something does not mean that something doesn't exist. It isn't too deep knowledge to understand. To someone with no se...

There is nothing more to add apart from asking you to re-read my posts again.

If you think about it, there are many unknown existence in this world. Until you know about them. Why is it so difficult to see?

Well flannel, if you try think clearer, perhaps you could see better. It is not all that easy to understand the deep knowledge and logic, suppose. :ch...

And one more thing - I forgot to add, is that we are all existence on the road according to M. Heidegger. Even if, we feel and it looks as if the worl...

There are two types of existence. The known and unknown. Unknown existence can be like non-existence. In that sense, yes unknown existence which is pe...

No it is not. They are reverse in the cause and effect. They are not synonymous.

You are very welcome. Sorry for not having answered your question. Well actually I don't have a worldview of my own. That is why I am keep reading phi...