What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[Hurkyl]

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire.

 

[phoenixthoth]

there was a fire. otherwise, there'd be no smoke, right?

maybe it was coming from your sizzling brain... hmm... ponder that.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though.

Good call...hide from any questions. If you could answer a question, the conversation could move on...so, what other languages do you speak besides English and Pali?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

This is wrong. Other causes could be:

1) chemical reation, no fire.
2) dry ice "smoke" mistaken for smoke.
3) hallucination of smoke.

 

[phoenixthoth]

zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
let's start with what you know about God.

What do you mean by god?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire.

No you didn't.

 

[pallidin]

I have read this thread with much interest.
But I have also taken notice that most of the questions presented by Protonman are actually statements of personal belief disquised as "questions" in an effort to impose his view of reality through flowering rhetoric and subtley induced respondant contradictions leading to an internal confusion and thus a potential to adhere to his beliefs for "soothing".
I am not easily fooled, am I Protonman!
You are seeking followers, are you not? Is that not the actual purpose of your being here?
Of course it is.
That is your only purpose here.
You are dismissed.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate.

I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

 

[phoenixthoth]

didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

What is "buring"?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion.

What do you mean by illusion?

 

[phoenixthoth]

zero, don't be so picky. you know darn well he meant burning.

Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean by illusion?

ah...

*ponders.

well, define illusion and maybe i'll answer that to your satisfaction.

edit: this picture is worth looking at:
http://www.storeitonline.nl/funny/funny/pictures/Toch_staat_alles_stil.gif

can you control the motion of the wheels?

i can to a degree. but i can't make it go away except when i stop looking at it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

That was exactly my point. If you can mistake other things for smoke, then the statement "if someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong". Someone can "see" something incorrectly.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman


2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

This is illogical. We know absolutely for a fact that you can percieve something that is not there, and vice-versa.

Ahhh...I remember at the start of this thread, when protonman claimed that experimental evidence wasn't worth accepting because it was based on subjective perception, and now protonman puts all his faith in perception.

Still going to claim to be a physics teacher, too?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

Yes I meant to write burning.

How do you know your car is your car? Because you remember that it is yours and you paid for it. Understanding smoke is not profound. If you know what smoke is you see it and from your memory you know it is smoke. You have a valid perception of it. If someone saw that image you showed and thought it was smoke they would be wrong because it is not smoke. This is what I have been saying all along. A valid perception is valid because the way it understands an object and the way the objects exists are in conformity.

You would have to develop some reason that allows you to infer what it is. This is what scientists do all the time. Based on the images they see they can infer properties about the object.

 

[phoenixthoth]

in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up.

Keep what up?

 

[pallidin]

I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizarre way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.
This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by pallidin I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizarre way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.

How?

This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not.

Good for you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Keep what up?

*hits protonman with a stick.

i shouted my question at you. it was a thinly veiled compliment.

 

[Hurkyl]

No you didn't

Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved.


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically?

 

[phoenixthoth]

touche.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved.


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically?

Shhh! Empirical evidence only counts when protonman wants it to count...the rest of the time it is irrelevant. He must have learned something special when he was translating ancient Buddhist texts, studying physics in college, or while he was on his quest for the Holy Grail. Something "special" like how to use a double standard to make rational discussion impossible?

 

[phoenixthoth]

this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please.

Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

no, no, zero, don't get me wrong. there's nothing wrong with old rational. neither is there with new rational.

 

[phoenixthoth]

hurkyl, it sounds like you're smoking dope. did you smoke some at 4:20 am this morning?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

You need to stop being "old rational" and start being "new rational"(also known as "irrational" apparently)

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

First off I have no idea where your quote came from.

It is not an absolute statement. They are talking about a particular case. What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially. It is a learning tool. If you don't want to learn you will not benefit from it. If you do there is value in the statement.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially.

No. You used it to try to show that "Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement". Let me refresh your memory:

After quoting Tom saying:

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

You replied:

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

(I highlighted the phrase in red).

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.

As for the possibility of attaining knowledge via inference, that is the whole point, since you started off saying that QM is unacceptable because of not being "perceivable".

However, every bit of formalism in QM is a result of inferential work, and (serious) interpretations of that formalism do strictly stick to logic.

[edit: fixed the spacing]

 

[protonman]

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.

The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong. What is so hard about this?