And realize that even:
Ah, there seems to be some basic confusion here on two key issues:
- ) Sound arguments about the existential nature of concrete objects do in fact exist- circular arguments being one example. They simply fail to prove their conclusions. That’s my bad, I should have stuck to my original formulation, and this latest formulation we’ve been debating has been defeated. Your circular arguments gave me cause to explore the nature of circularity, and what I discovered is that circular arguments are sound. Well, that’s the learning process for you. You trying to defend your argument from accusations of circularity, or defending your novel ideas of how definitions work with regards to soundness is all rather besides the point.
That said, my original thesis remains; Logical arguments can’t prove the existential nature of concrete objects because the definitions are always too imprecise. Circular arguments prove nothing, arguments with abstract stipulated definitions either can’t be tested for soundness or else have conclusions too vague to establish the existence of a concrete. This was all covered in my points that you declared were ‘too small’ or ‘too numerous’ to address (especially my first reply to you where I gave the analogy of the atheist being asked to accept that God acted in the world as a premise in an argument to establish the existtence of God), which is ironic given the stubborn way you insist I answer ALL and ONLY the questions you ask of me while not exetending the same courtesy to me- you ignore questions I pose and points I make at will, but now are into triple posting your insistence that I address what you’ve decided is super important in a debate you already won. And I may well address those points were it not for key issue number 2:
2.) In the past few replies, you’ve for some reason called me a liar, a moron, accused me of playing games, and so on. I don’t recall having debated you before, but apparently you’re a miserable piece of shit who can’t discuss even highly technical matters with fellow academics without flying into a rage and spitting up all over yourself. Since I have some basic dignity, you and I won’t be discussing anything further. I don’t just mean philosophy. You can fuck off with regards to logic, you can fuck off with regards to politics, you can fuck off with regards to relgion, you can fuck off with regards to matters of common interest or shooting the breeze. In fact, you can take this as a general, catch-all reccomendation for you to fuck right off.
Define creator.
If I did designed a humanoid intelligence, then I become creator to it.
veda states the same idea, that there might exist creator .
but againn , that creator might have got caught up in situation who not suppose to be entirely eternal.
creator might have no answer how itself got created.
there surely might be enough lot limitations with creator of ours.
If I created humaniod inteligence of conscieousness , then surely it will be like getiing created by some neighbour alien.
what if i technically achieved to create new space and time and conciousnesss in an successful experiment.
the conciousness in that space is programmed to know its own origin and want to reach to the creator if existed .
why would I want it that way?
It is one of the way of creating computer to dig out the answer which inreturn will help me dig out answer to my question (query about my existence).
I don’t know why you are calling circular arguments sound. A circular argument would be invalid, thus unsound.
My current issue is with your notion that it is circular.
Think of this situation;
NASA is monitoring the nervous system of a man in a space craft. The man has gotten into trouble and reports that he feels disoriented and not necessarily completely conscious. In the effort to repair the problem, NASA tells the man that he must reach into a vent and clear out any debris. The man struggles in his mental confusion, wearing space gloves, and reports that he thinks that he can feel debris in the vent but isn’t sure that he isn’t merely imagining it. So NASA checks very closely the responses of his nervous system and verifies that he is actually feeling something and not merely imagining it.
From NASA’s report, they deduce that debris actually is in the vent. They did not know that it was there until after they examined the neurological readouts.
But then you perhaps wish to argue that what he felt wasn’t debris. NASA argues that there is nothing that should have been in that vent and thus anything that he could feel is, by definition, debris.
NASA reports:
1:00 AM) Debris is anything he can feel in the vent
2:00 AM) He felt something in the vent
3:00 AM) Debris exists in the vent.
There is nothing presumptuous or circular going on. And it would not make the tiniest bit of difference to the soundness of the conclusion if you or the man disagreed with what the word “debris” SHOULD or REALLY means.
In such a case as above, the logic would certainly prove something very important to NASA and the man. You may continue in your disbelief if you wish.
Definitions are as precise as men choose them to be.
When I see someone out and out saying the opposite of what he knows to be true (while refusing to answer direct and pertinent questions), he is lying. When his judgment is so impaired that he either cant see or refuses to see the simplest of things, he has no right calling anyone else a moron, as you had done.
If you’re going to stop being a horse’s ass, I’ll give you one more chance James.
A valid deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. You won’t find it defined any differently anywhere else.
P1 God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
That is clearly valid on the only definition of ‘valid deductive argument’ I know of.
‘Evaluating neurological readouts’ gives you a conclusion based on evidence, which is inductive, not deductive. I’m not sure if that will matter for what you’re going to argue ultimately, just putting it out there.
Right, that's a sound circular argument. One problem is that it doesn't prove anything. If I argue that what he felt wasn't debris, then that means I'm granting you that he felt something. The only thing in your argument persuading me of something I don't already know is that NASA has [i]decreed[/i] that I must use the word 'debris' for anything found in a vent. If I simply refuse, because I think the technical definition of debris is something other than what they state, there is no argument present in the above against my position that 'what he felt wasn't debris'. That's why I say the proper definition is important; if I have some other idea of what 'debris' means that justifies my disagreement, you declaring that debris means what YOU want isn't persuasive, of course.
A circular argument is a sound argument that fails to prove it’s conclusion by already assuming the conclusion is true.
Because of your P1 above, you can take out the word ‘something’ in P2.
2:00AM) He felt debris in the vent.
3:00AM) Debris exists in the vent.
And again, it comes down to one thing- the interpretation of 2. If 2 means to say,
2:30AM He had an experience of feeling something in the vent,
then this argument isn’t valid, as you require a hidden premise:
2:50AM) If he has an experience of feeling someting in the vent, then there must be something in the vent
Which isn’t true. The instruments, however accurate, could be wrong. Evil demons could be messing with people’s brains. I’m not saying he didn’t feel something, or that he coudn’t have, or that it’s not silly to suppose that he didn’t. I’m saying the jump from ‘he felt something like X’ to ‘there is something like X’ isn’t formally valid and nothing more. If it were formally valid, it would be impossible for anybody to ever feel something like X without their being an X- that’s what validity is.
If on the other hand 2 means to say (and I think it does, since you brought up the whole ‘neurological readings’ things to establish it) this:
2:45AM There is something in the vent that was felt,
then you don't need the hidden (false) premise, but your argument looks like this:
2:45 There is debris in the vent that was felt,
3:00 Therfore there is debris in the vent.
the word ‘that’ in the above signals a conjunction, which can be broken down into
2:46 There is debris in the vent.
2:47 The debris was felt
3:00 Therefore there is debris in the vent.
Which is straightforwardly circular, no matter how many things you stick between 2:46 and 3:00, and no matter how you swap the words ‘something in the vent’ and ‘debris’ which you’ve defined as identical anyway.
It’s 5:43 in the morning here, if I made some mistake or mistinterpreted your argument, it’s not because I’m an evil jackass trying to con you, and you should probably relax.
Yeah, this would be another example of why premises like the above are false. It could be that they are lying, or that it’s 5Am and they missed something, or that you missed something in your haste to declare “Game Over” or that there is some important detail that makes their position more clear in one of the numerous points you decided were too small to bother addressing, or any number of things.
Ecmandu is a moron. He coudn’t make a deductive argument with a piece of chalk in one hand and a copy of Socratic Logic in the other. He challenged me to a formal debate about deductive proofs, then looked up what a deductive proof is on wikipedia a week later, and still doesn’t seem to know. This thread has been a long drawn out moron-fest of him making completely incoherent statements, claiming to have literal magic powers, calling other people pawns in a spirit war that know-not-what-they do, and etc. At one point he demanded I write a ‘Magnus Opus’(sic) defending the existence of God. When I refused and clarified some earlier point, he called that (two sentence) clarification my “Magnus Opus” for the rest of the day. When pressed for a definition, he said a Magnum Opus was ‘a person’s penultimate achievement in life’. That’s what he thought a two sentence post in Off Topic was. So yes, he’s a moron. Several times have I told you that as a late comer to the thread, you are missing important elements of what’s been going on here, as well as my point.
I mean, at the beginning of your latest post you seem not to know what makes a deductive argument valid, but I'm not calling you a moron because there's already ample evidence to the contrary. You've complimented my intelligence before, there's no reason to pretend you had some good reason to take it all back tonight. You were just being a cunt. But after I told you off, I thought about it, and thought about some similar things I've said to people over the years in anger, and I have to let it slide to avoid hypocrisy. Not speaking of Ecmandu here, who is as far as I can tell literally mentally retarded and has no business being here.
That is tautological, not circular.
Circular means;
- God exists because the universe exists
- And the universe exists because of God.
A → B because B → A
Emmm… no.
Induction is generalizing specifics; “It happened that way the last time, so it will the next time”.
Deduction is presuming cause and effect; “He felt something because something touched him”.
That’s just ridiculous.
I actually have a theory about stupidity… which is that when something doesn’t make sense to someone it’s because it’s so complicated and at some point fallacious that the person is so SMART they can’t understand it.
Now, often in these scenarios these people don’t actually go through the trouble of pointing out their intuition and simplifying the matter. The reason I didn’t understand you argument is because you were claiming that you weren’t making an argument, so I went back and showed that all words must be deductive arguments. That’s new, they don’t teach that in philosophy.
The question is do you have another option when using a word? (That’s an argument)
Yes.
The question is, do you expect a certain outcome for using a particular word? (That’s deduction)
Yes.
Is it a proof… damn straight it’s a proof.
You will find plenty of sources saying that tautologies are a kind of circular reasoning, or that they are the same thing. Regardless, the next line of your source above gives an example of circular reasoning in exactly the format I presented- simply restating the premise with ‘therefore’.
“Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.”
God exists,
Therefore, God exists.
Your source goes on to note that this is deductively valid, as I’m saying.
Presuming cause and effect is presuming that because it happened that way the last time, it is happening because of a rule that ensures it always will.
P1 He felt something
C Something touched him
Isn’t valid because there’s no argument. It needs a hidden premise of the sort
P2: If he felt something, something must have touched him.
Which seems false since we feel things all the time that aren’t a result of being touched. Adding that premise gives validity, but now it isn’t sound because of the false premise.
Well, I took you step by step through my reasoning.
That might be your reasoning but such isn’t necessary. The word “induction” in general refers to extending influence beyond solid contact. In the case of logic it is referring to extending beyond the immediately solid logic into what is probably true rather than certainly true. And the word “deduction” refers to direct indisputable, logical, 100% certain premise-to-conclusion connections.
Uccisore, I sent this to only_humean to take a look over because he said I couldn’t be edifying… he also said recently that i didn’t know what an argument was, both these definitions are from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, none from wikipedia…
- Arguments
An argument is a set of two or more sentences or beliefs (logicians allow arguments with no premises, but they won’t be relevant here). One of the sentences or beliefs is the conclusion, the rest are premises. The premises of a good argument provide justification, warrant, evidence, or support for its conclusion.
My point is that words are arguments because they have other options, the argument is which one to use. The deductive argument is the belief that which word you use will have a specific impact…
- Deductive argument: A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.
The deduction is in the form of:
Different words have different outcomes (at a minimum they make different sounds and thus have different outcomes), If not this word, than this outcome.
Thus, when you claimed that Uccisore was not using a deductive argument, but rather an assertion, I can show through meta-analysis that all assertions are deductive arguments.
You were both teasing me for this (he still is).
Dictionaries are nice. But articles on tautology and circular reasoning regularly conclude they are versions of the same thing, and a dictionary is just going to define a word and stop there. . The same format I gave for a circular argument is used by your source wikipedia and explained as being valid. I see no reason to doubt it, given the definition of a valid argument. If the premise is a restating of the conclusion, it is certainly impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premise is true, which is the only criteria for validity I've heard of.
And yes, that's the definition of induction and deduction that I'm using here: induction would include a wide variety of methodologies that give probable results. Which is why I've been saying 'sense perception -> conclusion about reality' type forms aren't deductive, and statements of the form 'a sense perception like X [i]must[/i] mean an X exists' are false. Inductively (confirmed with instrument readings by third parties being the example you gave) they can be as close to certain as induction gets.
Oh yeah, and because I can show through meta analysis that all assertions are deductive arguments, I can show that your argument refutes itself Uccisore…
James, am I still digging a deeper hole for myself?
A conclusion about sense perception is a conclusion about reality. You’re playing a word game here.
Also, arguments are not circular if they reduce themselves to the irreducible.
I don’t want to steal James’ thunder here, but I can modify my argument to disprove your claim like he is.
A concrete object is something that can be discerned as separate from something else.
This whole line is a sentence, which itself is a concrete object, the concrete objects between the spaces are words.
In order to read the sentence, you need concrete objects as words and a sentence.
Deductive arguments are where the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion.
Proof is when there is no other option.
Therefor, if you understand this, concrete objects are deductively proven.
Nah, that’s just the Matrix making you think that, Morpheus!
It took me a while to get my bearings on what they teach in academia… but now that I’ve got the definitions and claims, this should be a breeze. Uccisore… that’s also an existential proof.
I think, therefore I am.
I think of a red mouse, therefore it is real because I am.
Hence, you’ve become your own proof of everything you wish to believe in, Ecmandu. Not a very good argument, Ecmandu. 
Your thought of a red mouse is real. When it comes to the external world, that’s a different set of arguments. I’m not using I think therefor I am anyways.
John, I think therefor I am, is a “think is an am” statement, but thinking requires motion, so implied in the statement is I move therefor I am. In this, “I move is an I am” equally, “I don’t move is an I am not.”
To some extent this formulation runs into the A=A problem. I am I and in order to be I, I am I. If I am not I, than I am not. Understand?