Banno

That's an excellent analogue. If a square is a regular polygon with four equal sides then I don't know of any way to make it a triangle. But if it is ...

That's a pretty ambiguous question. Both sides of what - the '+' or the '='? I gave you an example where the equation worked with drops of water. One ...

@"Noble Dust" has dropped the ball. I need a new messenger. Takers?

Exactly. And that is exactly what we have done; defined "1" so that the theory of numbers applies. If god 'defied' logic, we could simply change the r...

We tend to be quite selective in choosing our examples. 1+1=1 when we watch raindrops slide down a window. 1+1=3 when folk fuck without contraception.

Why not? Also, where did "mustn't" come from?

Nope. Agree on an arbitrary starting point. If a contradiction arrises, go back and have another go.

A varient on (2) would be to choose any arbitrary truths as starting points.

Games are rules-based.

Of course it is.

Maybe not. Natural deduction uses assumptions that can be introduced ad hoc, rather than axioms.

Logic is just rules for language use. So your question amounts to "Can god do things that defy description?" And that's a dead question - unless you c...

That'd fine; just my own musings. I look forward to your return. I guess I will have to stop procrastinating in the interim.

Don't be absurd; if "Crucification" is not a word, what is it?

The crucification is coming along nicely.

Transcendental arguments are notoriously fickle. Placing them at the heart of philosophy can't be a good idea.

@"creativesoul" A good starting point with any philosophical narrative is "where does it go wrong?"

X-)

OK. "Behold, My Son, @"Noble Dust"; In Whom I am Well Pleased" Now it's presumably up to you to crucify him.

But surely the Will to Power is the very mark of the Overman.

Curious that previous iterations of this game did not result in such great expectations of me. I had puzzled at the quantity of directly religious mor...

I used a hash (not a hashtag) in the first rule; my followers wrongly assumed that these were obligatory. I'm just pointing out that this was mere dog...

I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already.

SO folk of stout heart and good will cannot reach such simple agreement without being coerced?

No; both signals or causes.

It occurs to me that I may have imported too much of Searle into my understanding of Wittgenstein. Searle said in the introduction to one of his books...

And the answer is the same: yes.

@"mcdoodle" I like this too, but only as an object of criticism. So that we can be scientific, let's apply falsification to the situation we describe....

Fair point. You still have to choose sides and I still get to decide who dies Pollice verso.

Rule two: Rules that are labeled with a hash (#) are hereby deemed not well-formed and hence need not be followed. Clean deck; start again.

But an account that involves showing - is that a justification? What do we make of someone who holds up their hands in front of their own face, and ye...

Moore was certain he had hands. If what is required for him to know that he has hands is some account that uses language, then we must conclude, count...

It is if you make that the goal.

Bah. Criteria ought be relevant. Trees need not apply.

Eminently sensible...

What happens is a competition to have the most important rule. I wonder how this would proceed if played only amongst women.

I'm nonplussed by this; so I will say no more about it.

I've given the article a quick read. I must say at the outset that the neuroscience it sets out is beyond my keen. I take it that the idea is a certai...

Here again is that odd refusal you have to read what was actually written. Bah. Time to give it a rest, Meta. Thanks for the discussion; despite what ...

Rubbish. The first 250 paragraphs in PI are a series of arguments against your position.

No, I hadn't, but will do so soon.

X-) Yep. It's not just you. Borderline crackpot. Still has some use, though. I suggest we go back to working out exactly where you and I differ on the...

Frustrating, isn't it? To the extent that sometimes I simply stop responding to Meta. But in this thread I am having some fun in explaining and tighte...

But that is exactly what we do when we talk about the rules of chess. we step outside of those rules. We can't step outside of language as a whole, bu...

This rather fits in with Sam's suggestion that you have not understood Wittgenstein. This is exactly the account that Wittgenstein shows to be faulty;...

Let me explain this a bit further. It's an old argument, but probably most familiar from Davidson. A language learner combines a large but limited voc...

Now Meta can't mean this as it stands; because obviously if we are making our language up as we go along, and there are no rules, then language would ...

So I set up that game again, in which we do make up the rules as we go.

Rule #3 http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/socialContract1.png

This is the bit that is relevant to our present discussion... http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland2.jpg