Banno

I wonder if folk are interested in summarising where they think we are at, with regard to the title question?

The issue with a student who is "unavailable for learning" is that they can quickly unsettle a whole class - or in this case a thread. Throwing paper ...

Not sure what that means.

Amongst teachers, there is an expression reserved for some students, diverted by their circumstances to such a degree that nothing can be taught until...

Thanks, but you can save yourself the trouble of finding such references, if they are for my benefit. It would be wonderful to listen to Descartes and...

, asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. suggested that it's "not possible to reason with...

Don't feed the troll?

I'm not sure you got the point, which had nothing to do with new ideas. Here's another p?q: "If the milk is sour, then your bank account is empty". Or...

Not all my replies are intended for you. Sometimes the questions and issues raised are rhetorical, or intended for a particular individual in a way th...

It was a joke.

It's unusual, but it's been seen before. What is unusual is that Corvus has been around for so long without being banned. There are maybe one or two o...

Meh. I tried.

And some were struggling to get out, only to be pushed back in... :wink:

I did, you missed it, it's not going to help.

My overall impression is that logic is not a strong point hereabouts.

Actually, it's ~(p? q). What I was pointing to is the triviality of your Both ¬q ? (p ? ¬p) and q ? (p ? ¬p) are valid.

Well, I'm not at all sure - that's somewhat the point. Some folk think he was making an inference - you seem to think otherwise, and no one has set th...

That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas.

No; nor does it validate it. Why should we agree with the cogito? But, ¬q ? (p ? ¬p) is equally valid. Note the negation.

Sure, all that. But what you have not shown is that if P thinks then it exists. Have you a proof of that? Here we go again.

Any logic text you choose. That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator. (Edited - I assumed the wron...

Well, we might re-set by considering what it is to be certain. seems to have been satisfied with evolution as a source of certainty, which is a bit we...

It's not just my logic.

Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited. Now from this we might conclude either that he...

Previous experience has shown that Corvus will not correct his errors nor accept any interpretation not at one with his own, apparently now to the poi...

Yes, Follow. No, Corvus. That is your confusion. I have never claimed that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist. What I have said, quite explici...

Why - because that would be entertaining?

, from "If it thinks, then it exists" it does not follow that "If it does not think, it does not exist". And from "If it rains, the ground will be wet...

It seems not, but

Quite right. The religious need scholarship in order to make their scriptures palatable, even unto themselves.

Ok. This is why we can't have nice conversations on these forums. No, it doesn't. You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is diff...

Because (t?e) can be true and yet (¬t?¬e) either true or false. He thinks implication is equivalence, it seems. I have to go water the garden. It's no...

So you are certain of the Cogito without any justification?

It's not false - if by that you mean that it is a contradiction and false for every interpretation. (t?e) tells us nothing about (¬t?¬e).

Happy Sugarfest, all. May your cocoa be ethically sourced.

There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think. But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would...

You replied to the post. Now you would deny that there was a post, and supose this to be somehow coherent? I have not claimed that the cogito is meani...

I don't know what you are asking. Shouldn't that be (¬t?¬e) ? F? Which is not valid, as shown by the countermodel. https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3t~5~3...

I gather (¬t?¬e) = F is to be understood as "(¬t?¬e) implies the false"? No, it doesn't. Countermodel: Rocks don't think, but exist. You have not show...

Whatever. Flogging him repeatedly is tiresome. Notice the "if...then" in that? If what you say were so, someone ought be able to set the argument out ...

You think you have proved it false, but you apparently use an invalid argument. Others here claim that it is true, and indubitable, but offer no suppo...

You're denying what is explicit in the text. No citation will help you. Unconscionable.

I didn't say it was. I said it suits our more liberal times. In other times it was no doubt understood as showing how a vassal must obey their lord. N...

Whaat does that mean - that we need a predicate logic? I offered that already. Have you an analysis that shows the validity of "I think, therefore I a...

I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at

Make up your mind! :wink: I'm out, I think. Too tired to think. (Which can be seen in what I just wrote...)

It shows (I hope...) that your is valid. If trivial.

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((t~5e)~5(~3t~5~3e))~5((t~4e)~5(t~5e))

Fine. But...