So if I use my own noggin, somehow I’m responsible for how awesome my brain is?? It’s like I invented it myself? If I borrow someone else’s brain or collaborate with them, all that goes to ****? Pull your head out of your ass!
…where the Frick did I ever say that?
…perhaps certainly it’s not about origins, but about discovery? They’re all circling the same real thing(s).
I never claimed you where using your brain, pre-packaged concepts and AI mediation of the creation is not using your mind…
Anyhoe.
Then if I am not crazy or insane you have no merit in dismissing where the leaks in your argument are pointed out.
But to get on the real point:
You work does not hold.
It applies a number to a set of foundationally assume distinctions, 3 in this case, asserts it as cyclical…and that is it.
There are more foundational systems than that.
You fail to see the obvious. It the triad is foundational, as you claim it is, there there is only one foundation and a monism results unwittingly on your part.
The opposite of truth/yes is not hate/and (or, for that matter…or), it’s apathy/not.
The opposite of truth is the absence of truth.
The opposite of truth and absence of truth is neither truth nor absence of truth.
What you argue is neither truth nor absence but rather the distinction of a loop by means of applying number to concepts.
The title of that thread is so goofy. Require and produce? You’re being goofy on purpose. Why do I keep forgetting this?
It would seem goofy from someone obsessed with applying the number 3 to a loop…so the compliment is appreciated…but…I will hold back a real response given I know this is difficult for you.
So continue with the work.
What will you assert next?
So I am linking superalternation/superimplication with Modus Tollens, and subalternation/subimplication with Modus Ponens.
M.T. (#2 on my list) provides necessity (validity), M.P (#1 on my list) provides sufficiency (soundness).
Here’s the obstacle/wrinkle.
Material Implication (#16 in my list) does only sufficiency/soundness.
Material Equivalence (#17 on my list) does BOTH.
There isn’t anything further down my list than #2 that isolates for necessity/validity. Should(n’t) there be…between 16 & 17, I would think… a 16b?
Ichthus… Where’s the list please…?
Oh. Transposition. Duh.
Embarrassing. You know, but… Copilot was saying I was wrong because one (contraposition) was about terms, one (transposition) about propositions, and I forgot to argue back. So yeah
Thanks, Captain Snooty Underpants.
You’re a coward.
What would I do if I weren’t a coward?
You then proceed to go talk about everything else in the world, everywhere else in the world. You know, more stuff you don’t know anything about.
Because cowards run away.
Muting thread.
Nah cowards say **** on the Internet with 5000 sock puppets and think there’s no consequences.
Homework. Copilot helped me with column A & the first row of testing…and there was a lot of discussion preceding the settled criteria. Hopefully accurate row A. Also gave me stuff to get the testing part filled out automatically (besides the sound check), but may implement later. Objections so far?
My son worked with Gemini to produce this beautiful demonstration of the glaring double standard:
If you don’t know what I mean by double standard, notice that existential import (soundness) is only required when an argument is deemed conditionally valid. And that is IF it even makes it past the people who consider it an existential fallacy (INVALID, not just PRESUMED unsound, which is STILL incorrect) rather than conditionally valid.
The funniest thing about this for me is that the distribution rules already acknowledge that it is existentially distributed across the entire set/category, or it is not fit to be in a logical argument.
The way I did column L (their column P) is a little bit different from how Gemini and my son did it, but I’m glad they did it that way because I was telling Copilot to leave column F blank for the person composing the argument to fill out as a sound check. That is still correct, but the way Gemini and my son did it is what truly shows the double standard.
