Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

door · 05-26-2004, 07:09 AM

techoya-

your view on the world (thankfully based in perception and analysis, and not hope) seems to lack a few elements, and I am interested in how you handle this lack (Im not patronizing, Im being honest here).

Your perceptions about relationships only level out YOUR hopes for them (expectations). What about the others hopes for you? Doesn't that also define relationships? If I have hope X and the person doesn't fulfil that X, sure that defines my relationship. BUt a more honest approach would be to say that I have hope X, they have hope Y, I don't give Y, they don't give X. So therefore if my hope X is greater than my hope ~Y(thats not y) I should give Y.

Wouldn't you agree? That we are better agents (better meaning more actualized in who we are and discovering all we can) by treating others as agents?

Also, you seem to tread the waters of existentialism- so I agree, you make your own expectations.

Now to nit-pick again

Your rebute to the "I think therefor I am" is illogical- it doesn't disprove the syllogism to show cases where something DOESN'T think and still is- its a fallacy to think so- let me illustrate

x- think, y- am

1) X then Y
______________________
2) (conclustion) not X then not Y
3) not X and Y
_____________________
4) Fallacy

- this is your argument: if I think, therefor I am it must also be if I don't think I must not be. But computers dont think and they are, so it cannot be I think therefor I am.

the problem is the first part- it isn't truth that if x then you, it must also be ~x then ~y. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, even though some make it often (so don't feel stupid).

all x then y means is that X is SUFFICIENT for Y and Y is NECCISSARY for X.

So with an X you will always have a Y (because X alone is enough to guarentee Y). So you will never have an X without a Y. But you can still have a Y without an X-
with a Y you don't know that X exists, but only that it is possible that X exists (because Y is Necissary for X to exist- not the otherway around).

To illustrate this proof take this claim- all fathers are men. so : father then Man. This is true correct?

What you intended to do was show that if the first was incorrect (I think/ Father) the second must also be incorrect. But think about it!

father then man
your conclusion : ~Father then ~Man

But everyone knows that just because a person isn't a father doesn't make him not a man! I'm not a father, and I'm definitly a man.

Does this all make sense then?

What you tried to do is show that if Im not a father I cant be a man;

so father is X and man is Y:

1) X then Y
______________________
2) (conclustion) not X then not Y
3) not X and Y
_____________________
4) Fallacy

- Look familiar? thats cause it is the SAME exact argument you brought.

So just because a computer doesn't think doesn't mean it wont exist under the logical argument x then y. So I think then I am isn't contridictory AT ALL with I don't think then I am. They can both be true!

In fact, your computer doesn't think, and it isn't an I AM because it has no perception of itself as a self apart from all else! so the sylogism I think therefore I am couldn't be applied to it anyway-

I'm just hoping that you will pick up on this logical truth here and realize your mistake (a common one actually).

in Logic, and Math, there are TRUTHS (it is just that these truths are meaningless without something REAL attached to them)

05-26-2004, 07:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
door Upright	techoya- your view on the world (thankfully based in perception and analysis, and not hope) seems to lack a few elements, and I am interested in how you handle this lack (Im not patronizing, Im being honest here). Your perceptions about relationships only level out YOUR hopes for them (expectations). What about the others hopes for you? Doesn't that also define relationships? If I have hope X and the person doesn't fulfil that X, sure that defines my relationship. BUt a more honest approach would be to say that I have hope X, they have hope Y, I don't give Y, they don't give X. So therefore if my hope X is greater than my hope ~Y(thats not y) I should give Y. Wouldn't you agree? That we are better agents (better meaning more actualized in who we are and discovering all we can) by treating others as agents? Also, you seem to tread the waters of existentialism- so I agree, you make your own expectations. Now to nit-pick again Your rebute to the "I think therefor I am" is illogical- it doesn't disprove the syllogism to show cases where something DOESN'T think and still is- its a fallacy to think so- let me illustrate x- think, y- am 1) X then Y ______________________ 2) (conclustion) not X then not Y 3) not X and Y _____________________ 4) Fallacy - this is your argument: if I think, therefor I am it must also be if I don't think I must not be. But computers dont think and they are, so it cannot be I think therefor I am. the problem is the first part- it isn't truth that if x then you, it must also be ~x then ~y. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, even though some make it often (so don't feel stupid). all x then y means is that X is SUFFICIENT for Y and Y is NECCISSARY for X. So with an X you will always have a Y (because X alone is enough to guarentee Y). So you will never have an X without a Y. But you can still have a Y without an X- with a Y you don't know that X exists, but only that it is possible that X exists (because Y is Necissary for X to exist- not the otherway around). To illustrate this proof take this claim- all fathers are men. so : father then Man. This is true correct? What you intended to do was show that if the first was incorrect (I think/ Father) the second must also be incorrect. But think about it! father then man your conclusion : ~Father then ~Man But everyone knows that just because a person isn't a father doesn't make him not a man! I'm not a father, and I'm definitly a man. Does this all make sense then? What you tried to do is show that if Im not a father I cant be a man; so father is X and man is Y: 1) X then Y ______________________ 2) (conclustion) not X then not Y 3) not X and Y _____________________ 4) Fallacy - Look familiar? thats cause it is the SAME exact argument you brought. So just because a computer doesn't think doesn't mean it wont exist under the logical argument x then y. So I think then I am isn't contridictory AT ALL with I don't think then I am. They can both be true! In fact, your computer doesn't think, and it isn't an I AM because it has no perception of itself as a self apart from all else! so the sylogism I think therefore I am couldn't be applied to it anyway- I'm just hoping that you will pick up on this logical truth here and realize your mistake (a common one actually). in Logic, and Math, there are TRUTHS (it is just that these truths are meaningless without something REAL attached to them)