tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3957575855061886789..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Popular and logical validityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22892703723742976242009-06-25T17:33:53.925-07:002009-06-25T17:33:53.925-07:00One Brow: "If I were to make a positive claim...<b>One Brow:</b> "<i>If I were to make a positive claim that minds were definitely an emergent property of brains, I should certainly offer proof thereof. At this point, I would say it is my expectation this is true based on certain indications, but I could also be wrong, and I have no definitive statements to offer.</i>"<br /><br />Self-deception is *still* lying.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12943595818416602832009-06-25T17:14:26.189-07:002009-06-25T17:14:26.189-07:00BDK: "... It's like the site is infected ...<b>BDK:</b> "<i>... It's like the site is infected with two Ilions, one an antisemite on PCP, the other just unable to confront arguments head on without using the word 'dishonest.'</i>"<br /><br />On the other hand, and as we all understand, I use 'dishonest' when it's appropriate, not indiscriminately.<br /><br />The truth is that Peresozo behaves the way that you falsely assert that I do ... and, the <i>discerning</i> eye will over time notice that Peresozo's behavior is a heightened or distilled version of your own behavior.<br /><br /><br />Here is an amusing trip down memory lane:<br /><br /><b><a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/03/searle-on-computer-model-of-mind.html#c5294304986597081334" rel="nofollow">Anonymous:</a></b> "<i>What's really hilarious is BDK dismissing Ilion for his tone - to, of all people, Perry the wannabe philosopher who spouts off as much or more trash than Ilion ever does, and far more often.<br /><br />At least Ilion tends to make sense. Perry's all bluster, and BDK.. you have a veneer of politeness, but it's just a veneer over very little substance. But at least you've got the veneer. Learn something from the man, Perry!</i>"<br /><br /><b><a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/03/searle-on-computer-model-of-mind.html#c5417237514463750786" rel="nofollow">BDK:</a></b> "<i>Anonymous: I try to be honest, not polite. There is a huge difference. At this site it is sometimes tempting to tone down my naturalism to make it seem more friendly to theists, but that would be dishonest, as it is inconsistent with theism.</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55558452924654588072009-06-25T15:27:25.871-07:002009-06-25T15:27:25.871-07:00Thank you, Dr. Reppert. Things had gotten out of h...Thank you, Dr. Reppert. Things had gotten out of hand.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19075663707715900152009-06-25T14:50:05.293-07:002009-06-25T14:50:05.293-07:00J: I am sure I know who you are. Regardless, you h...J: I am sure I know who you are. Regardless, you have gone way over the line. You are banned. Goodbye, and don't come back, under any other name either, or I will delete your posts.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80459114613397762192009-06-25T12:54:05.928-07:002009-06-25T12:54:05.928-07:00J, you are wrong. What Victor said is fine. It'...J, you are wrong. What Victor said is fine. It's like the site is infected with two Ilions, one an antisemite on PCP, the other just unable to confront arguments head on without using the word 'dishonest.'<br /><br />Sorry to see it went this route Victor. I'll check back in a few months.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12689164496200108162009-06-25T11:06:17.784-07:002009-06-25T11:06:17.784-07:00Care to wager on that, Jay the Satanist? That'...Care to wager on that, Jay the Satanist? That's what this site is, even in your own terms. Then yr mother was more than likely some baptist or jew satanist as well. <br /><br />Capiche? Chinga tu madres<br /><br />You don't know what a tautology is. Or Validity, or modus ponens. or reductio. Yr not logic. Yr the protestant-zionist satan. . <br /><br />Heh hehJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89134306828196645332009-06-25T10:03:40.958-07:002009-06-25T10:03:40.958-07:00I have a hard time believing that you aced a discr...I have a hard time believing that you aced a discrete math class, much less any class J.<br /><br /><i>"To say "just in case" seems to imply that the premises must be true to have valid conclusion, and that AIN'T correct."</i><br /><br />Not really, that's why Reppert said the conditional "if" for the premises being true. That's clearly supposing the hypothetical here and not that the premises need be true in reality.<br /><br /><i>"Look it up in Bergman, or Copi, Quine, or Schmendrickstein. One can have a valid argument without true premises. It's unsound, but valid. And that's logic."</i><br /><br />We know that already. No one denied that. Again, you're just confused about what Reppert said and how definitions of validity are usually defined.<br /><br /><i>"I understand what Mr Reppert was doing, and it might work for intro. course, but I do think it's imprecise and rather sloppy (especially for pro.)."</i><br /><br />Well apparently you don't understand what he was actually doing since you accused him of trying to put forward the incredible suggestion that validity is only for arguments with actually true premises. To think that Reppert doesn't know that premises of an argument can be false while still remaining valid is again incredible. It's obvious that he knows this. Why else would he object to arguments against the AFR that he admits are valid but contain false premises?<br />What he stated in the initial post was correct. <br /><br />I gave you a formal definition of validity from a logic textbook which is virtually identical with what Reppert said in the OP so at the end of the day you don't have a point. I suggest you re-read it and maybe it will sink in.<br /><br /><i>"And since you want to be a tough guy, maybe step in a ring, like legal, LA area, and Ill show you some more about logic, Jayski"</i><br /><br />What a whiny baby you are. Seriously, the fact that you get all upset over a comment on a blog and feel the need to invite physical harm on me just shows how pathetic you are, not to mention reinforces how stupid I thought you were. <br /><br /><i>"Yr not logician."</i><br /><br />Do I need to be a logician to show what a correct definition of validity is to you?.... That's what I thought. Apparently though, I did need to provide you with a formal definition of the word from a logic textbook. Let me provide it to you again, ok pumpkin:<br /><br />"An argument is valid if and only if it's impossible for all of the premises of the argument to be true and the conclusion false."<br /><br />Feel free to re-read it if necessary.<br /><br /><i>"Just another bible thumper."</i><br /><br />Yeah about that. I'm actually an agnostic, and an agnostic that thinks you're an idiot. LOL, I bet you didn't see that one coming.Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58479441651369875052009-06-25T09:59:08.136-07:002009-06-25T09:59:08.136-07:00:)
Doxologically Inept?<b>:)</b><br /><br />Doxologically Inept?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10774803401822061082009-06-25T09:34:14.501-07:002009-06-25T09:34:14.501-07:00O-B, you're not the judge or teacher here. I d...<b>O-B</b>, you're not the judge or teacher here. I don't care for you either. You don't respond to the points. You don't understand validity or soundness (validity IS merely a tautology, not really even about truth). I don't think you get Goedel, or even the difference between deduction and induction. And you're not funny either. <br /><br />Maybe go back to yr Radio Shack FAQ sites or something.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27118978273384285302009-06-25T09:13:06.551-07:002009-06-25T09:13:06.551-07:00No, you're wrong, Vati O-B.
I find it increas...<i>No, you're wrong, Vati O-B</i>.<br /><br />I find it increasingly unlikely that, should I ever be incorrect in the future, I would be able to credit you perception on this, given your repition of points both irrelevant and conceded, continued insistence that you, and not the 3-4 other people you have discussed this with -- including the author of the post, have correctly interpreted the original post, and you inability to spell a name of seven simple letters.<br /><br /><i>In fact, you sound nearly biblethumper-like in your inability to understand the issue</i>.<br /><br />In fact, your opinion on this issue has no meaning to me.<br /><br /><i>Validity is mere tautology</i>.<br /><br />This is close to accurate. Symbolocially every valid proof can be converted into a tautology. However, they are not tautologies per se.<br /><br /><i>Soundness on the other hand </i>...<br /><br />Was not addressed at all in the original post, and is irrelevant to a discussion of it.<br /><br />Now, if you really feel I'm wrong, make an argument that shows Dr. reppert addressed soundness in the original post, if you can.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49088347267419040652009-06-25T09:05:19.624-07:002009-06-25T09:05:19.624-07:00Oh! NOW I get it! It's an insult to give you y...<i>Oh! NOW I get it! It's an insult to give you your own medicine</i>.<br /><br />I actually like the taste of my own medicine. You so far have simply not given to me, nor had J.<br /><br /><i>Come now! You *know* that I'm not a member of the Church of Niceanity. You *know* that I refuse to play the "Let's all pretend that we ought to take seriously the stupid (or, if not stupid, then intellectually dishonest) things which 'atheists' say for the purpose of protecting atheism. YAY!" game</i>.<br /><br />Actually, I don't really see that as being relevant. Some of the most nastiest posters I have come across were nonetheless quite capable of distinguishing between their assertions and their evidenced position, some were not. Frankly, in the nice-nasty continuum, you fall well into the middle anyhow.<br /><br /><i>The burden of proof is on you, you willfully self-blinded fool</i>.<br /><br />If I were to make a positive claim that minds were definitely an emergent property of brains, I should certainly offer proof thereof. At this point, I would say it is my expectation this is true based on certain indications, but I could also be wrong, and I have no definitive statements to offer.<br /><br /><i>But, as it's impossible to prove falseness to be true, even fools such as you know that your only recourse is to attempt an invalid shifting of the burden of proof</i>.<br /><br />A definitive statement encumbers a burden of proof. This is true whether the statements posits a mind emerging from the brain or a mind as a separate entitiy connected to the brain.<br /><br />Further evidence-free assertions removed, as repeating an assertion does not make it more true or more evidenced.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, if you assert the falseness that computation (counting) is equivalent to mind, then reason and honesty (big stretch for you on both, I know) requires you to at least concede that you yourself are just a computer program.</i>.<br /><br />If you take my biological body to be the computer, than yes, I actually do believe my consciousness, wants, expectations, emotions, commitments, etc. are all the expressions of some very sophistocated programming that has emerged through a gradual process.<br /><br /><i>... reason and (in my case personal) knowledge of the workings of computer programs leads us to the further knowledge that you hold yourself ... In short, you hold yourself to have none of the characeristics of minds-as-we-each-experience-them to be. </i>.<br /><br />I was unaware we had reach the limits of what computers could emulate, or had positive proof that our experiences were of a qualitative difference. In fact, I hold that it will eventually be possible to create computers that experience many of these same characteristics.<br /><br /><i>The computer-which-is-you might as well be made of macaroni, for all the difference instantiation makes.</i>.<br /><br />Based on my diet, a considerable protion of it is made of oatmeal and eggs.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13798258609780499872009-06-25T09:00:10.755-07:002009-06-25T09:00:10.755-07:00No, you're wrong, Vati O-B.
In fact, you sou...No, <i> you're wrong,</i> Vati O-B.<br /><br />In fact, you sound nearly biblethumper-like in your inability to understand the issue. Validity is mere tautology. Soundness on the other hand relates to truth, proof, verification (and some, even Wittgenstein apparently would not permit inductive/empirical statements used in formal logic). Then the typical accountant-programmer often mistakes his Quicken program or template du jour for the world.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21094468489802332292009-06-25T08:43:51.798-07:002009-06-25T08:43:51.798-07:00Nope, you missed the point, O-B.
You're still...<i>Nope, you missed the point, O-B</i>.<br /><br />You're still wrong, and you still seem to have trouble with the spelling of my name. It's only 7 letters. It's hard to take you seriously then you continually fail even after correction.<br /><br /><i>Try Guru Wiki on Validity, </i>...<br /><br />That description matches what Dr. Reppert said. That you think otherwise is an indication of some sort of misinterpretaion or malfunction.<br /><br /><i>You're mistaken re Ilion as well, O-B</i>.<br /><br />Perhaps, but I doubt I am mistaken in any fashion you can present with both accuracy and inteligibility, given your past behavior in this thread. If you think Ilion does not value logic, you gravely misunderstand both Ilion and logic.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85884965609579134322009-06-25T08:35:57.113-07:002009-06-25T08:35:57.113-07:00Devastatingly Ignorant?
:)<i>Devastatingly Ignorant?</i><br /><br />:)One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15982768126261164972009-06-25T03:13:39.170-07:002009-06-25T03:13:39.170-07:00I am SO sorry! You see, poor, willfully-deluded O...I am SO sorry! You see, poor, willfully-deluded One Brow, having long ago concluded that you are simply the "nice" version of Perezoso/J, I so rarely even look at your posts. I've been gently teasing you about having encountered yourself, and I missed this ---<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>Computation -- which is merely counting (*)-- is not thought. Furthermore, the mere mechanical movement of bits of matter from here to there is not even counting.</i>"<br /><br />[(*) I might have said "counting and comparing," but even simple, straight-forward counting contains a comparison step.]<br /><br /><b>One Brow:</b> "<i>When you can demonstrate a qualitative difference, your statement will be more than bare assertion.</i>"<br /><br />Come now! You *know* that I'm not a member of the Church of Niceanity. You *know* that I refuse to play the "<i>Let's all pretend that we ought to take seriously the stupid (or, if not stupid, then intellectually dishonest) things which 'atheists' say for the purpose of protecting atheism. YAY!</i>" game.<br /><br />The burden of proof is on you, you willfully self-blinded fool. But, as it's impossible to prove falseness to be true, even fools such as you know that your only recourse is to attempt an invalid shifting of the burden of proof. But I am not "nice," and I decline to take your burden.<br /><br /><i>Computation is not thought: No computer software, no matter the computer hardware on which it runs, will ever he a mind.</i> This is reality; deal with it!<br /><br />Furthermore, if you assert the falseness that computation (counting) is equivalent to mind, then reason and honesty (big stretch for you on both, I know) requires you to at least concede that you yourself are just a computer program.<br /><br />And, since you hold yourself to be merely a computer program, reason and (in my case personal) knowledge of the workings of computer programs leads us to the further knowledge that you hold yourself (non-exhaustively and in no particular order):<br />* unable to think<br />* unable to grasp truth<br />* unable to learn<br />* unable to know<br />* unable to reason<br />* unable to choose<br />* unable to love<br />* unable to be loved<br />In short, you hold yourself to have none of the characeristics of minds-as-we-each-experience-them to be. The computer-which-is-you might as well be <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/#6.2" rel="nofollow">made of macaroni, for all the difference instantiation makes</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>Minds are capable of treating the mere mechanical movement of bits of matter from here to there as though it were counting -- minds can make and use symbols; symbols do not make minds.</i>"<br /><br /><b>One Brow:</b> "<i>Which does nothing to show that, fundamentally, minds have physical sustance that goes beyond on/off switches.</i>"<br /><br />And you're an intellectually dishonest fool (which statement is, of course, a redundancy).<br /><br />Minds are not conglomerations of matter: this is reality; deal with it!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39255054834743434912009-06-25T01:21:05.658-07:002009-06-25T01:21:05.658-07:00One Brow: "I actually listen to considered ar...<b>One Brow:</b> "<i>I actually listen to considered arguments, and when a person tells me I might have misunderstood a point, I will at least try to read it in the different. So yes, it was an insult.</i>"<br /><br />Oh! NOW I get it! It's an insult to give you your own medicine.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49988198296863855952009-06-24T23:18:41.473-07:002009-06-24T23:18:41.473-07:00You're mistaken re Ilion as well, O-B. Unlike ...You're mistaken re Ilion as well, O-B. Unlike Il Duce Idion, Mussolini of Online Morali-tay, I value logic, evidentiary argument and shall we say, Jeffersonian democracy instead of dogma and religious hysteria (I might make use of satire, but he routinely resorts to defamation and insults). He sounds like Curtis Silwa on crack. Or is it David Duke. <br /><br />This was boring 20 posts ago.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69031188854747675782009-06-24T23:00:24.559-07:002009-06-24T23:00:24.559-07:00Nope, you missed the point, O-B.
Try Guru Wiki on...Nope, you missed the point, O-B.<br /><br />Try Guru Wiki on Validity, near end:<br /><br />""""One thing we should note is that the validity of deduction is not at all affected by the truth of the premise or the truth of the conclusion."""""<br /><br />Whoop. There it is. <br /><br />He's also read the Tractatus, unlike most online philosophasters. Maybe St. Witt. was wrong too, tho, ehJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54565910416906493522009-06-24T22:26:24.237-07:002009-06-24T22:26:24.237-07:00"DI="Downright Intimidating"? I can..."<i>DI="Downright Intimidating"? I cant think of any other DI that would apply to me.</i>"<br /><br />Devastatingly Ignorant? :-0Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43378949240603603652009-06-24T22:18:25.543-07:002009-06-24T22:18:25.543-07:00You didn't claim anything, O-b (holy acronym, ...<i>You didn't claim anything, O-b (holy acronym, batman)</i>. <br /><br />You are making a false statement and spelling my name wrong.<br /><br /><i>Like the rest of the DI geniuses</i>,<br /><br />DI="Downright Intimidating"? I cant think of any other DI that would apply to me. <br /><br /><i> you didn't note that Dr. Reppert was in fact discussing soundness AND validity, until I pointed it out, and then the usual........quite right</i>. <br /><br />Except, he did not mention soundness, which is a different concept than what he means by popular validity, from what I can see.<br /><br /><i>It's a bit amusing to hear sunday schoolers defend logic, either Aristotelian or modern propositional sort--neither of which had anything to do with the history of ju-christian monotheism (or, shall we say, monotheism had nothing to do with Logic)</i>. <br /><br />That rather depends upon which aspect of monotheism you are discussing,I should think. <br /><br />Not that it matters. Being logically valid is the argumentative equivalent of doing a swan dive in competition.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65195214872784524592009-06-24T22:08:56.209-07:002009-06-24T22:08:56.209-07:00What insult was that? Asking about your appreciati...<i>What insult was that? Asking about your appreciation for the distinct similarities between your persona and methods with that of this particular "troll" is an insult</i>?<br /><br />I actually listen to considered arguments, and when a person tells me I might have misunderstood a point, I will at least try to read it in the different. So yes, it was an insult.<br /><br />I see much more in common stylistically between you and that poster than between I and that poster.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61670366006662037952009-06-24T21:34:01.314-07:002009-06-24T21:34:01.314-07:00And since you want to be a tough guy, maybe step i...And since you want to be a tough guy, maybe step in a ring, like legal, LA area, and Ill show you some more about logic, Jayski<br /><br />Yr not logician. Just another bible thumper.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40489178584615093472009-06-24T21:32:47.193-07:002009-06-24T21:32:47.193-07:00No kidding, dewd--some of us, like not from midwes...No kidding, dewd--some of us, like not from midwest or AZ also aced a discrete math course! wowee . That's not the quote anyway. Let me reiterate, Jay Dafty: <br /><br /><i>Reppert: """•An argument is valid just in case the argument is structured in such a way that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. To put it another way, if the premises are true, there is no possible way that the conclusion can be false.""""</i><br /><br />To say "just in case" seems to imply that the premises must be true to have valid conclusion, and that AIN'T correct. Look it up in Bergman, or Copi, Quine, or Schmendrickstein. One can have a valid argument without true premises. It's unsound, but valid. And that's logic. <br /><br />I understand what Mr Reppert was doing, and it might work for intro. course, but I do think it's imprecise and rather sloppy (especially for pro.).<br /><br />No hard feelin's VR. Or Jay Dafty (now, reread a few times until you get it).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91707137544707634992009-06-24T20:26:14.123-07:002009-06-24T20:26:14.123-07:00J, you are one daft dude. You're just confused...J, you are one daft dude. You're just confused. What you're talking about is the premises themselves possibly being false in reality and yet the argument still remaining valid. No doubt Reppert would accept that. What he's clearly saying is that if you were to hypothetically suppose the premises as true then the conclusion must also be true in a valid argument form. And he's correct here. Therefore, truth in this sense is a NECESSARY part of validity, contrary to what you said. In fact, pretty much all logic textbooks define validity with reference to truth. Let me provide you with one:<br /><br />"An argument is valid if and only if it's impossible for all of the premises of the argument to be true and the conclusion false."<br />("Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking"; Merrilee H. Salmon)<br /><br />That is a formal definition of validity found in a logic textbook so Reppert did no wrong defining it in this manner. Moreover, he is the philosophy professor here, not you. To think that Reppert actually doesn't know what he's talking about here would be utterly amazing. Please stop yapping on about nothing. You have no point and you're wasting time and virtual ink on something you already lost from the start.Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13674368420493036382009-06-24T18:54:06.334-07:002009-06-24T18:54:06.334-07:00No, you didn't READ my quote of Reppert--you&#...No, you didn't READ my quote of Reppert--you're just barking.<br /><br />Logical validity is independent of truth--the truth relates to premises. Sound arguments have true premises AND valid form (and it's the form which lends it validity, not the status of premises). So Reppert is not correct, except in informal sense (ie popular). <br /><br /><br />If crows fly, so do preachers.<br /><br />Crows fly.<br /><br />Preachers fly!<br /><br />Perfectly valid, but unsound. When you say, that's wrong, you're merely saying the first premise is false. <br /><br />[Lewis Carroll, not CS Lewis]Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com