Gregg R Thomas

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
@unseen – The Law of Forms is a very interesting idea. I had never heard of it before. It is like applying an “Occam’s Razor” to algebra.

Many years ago, when I was in college, I was obsessed with logic, so I studied Russel, Carnap, the early Wittgenstein, and others. However, when I stumbled onto Laws of Form, i…[Read more]

@Unseen – The Law of Forms is a very interesting idea. I had never heard of it before. It is like applying an “Occam’s Razor” to algebra.

jakelafort wrote:
Point is all of the antecedents have to be examined to have a clear indication of why an individual is a lefty or righty. Pointing to some innate or chosen personality trait or empathy etc is misleading.

There are some personality traits that broadly correlate with left and right, but that doesn’t mean they cause them.  Left…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Not much programming you can’t do using only AND, OR, NOT, IF (x) THEN (y) logical. statements

Yeah, there are many ways of writing functionally identical logical forms.

BTW, you might be interested in G. Spencer Brown’s logical calculus as presented in his classic book, Laws of Form. His logic is notable for not having four b…[Read more]

@jakelafort I have for a long time thought people can be programmed with any beliefs I used to think it required early indoctrination…

It reminds me of a recent conversation I had with an Evangelical of some type. He was trying to tell me that he did not believe in Evolution. I told him I agreed with him. He looked puzzled and asked me to e…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
So yeah the average Trump supporter v the average progressive? Better educated is the progressive i have to assume. Big fat hairy worthless deal. If you want to support humanist values then being a progressive is the absolute worst possible way to do so. Progressives have become what they despise. I am gonna not rant.

It’s a…[Read more]

There are always going to be hot-headed nutters.  A certain person whips them up.  You’re right, it’s not patriotic at all.  People are focused on just one or two things instead of the big picture.  I find that some of the Kamala-objecting Democrats are doing the same thing: objecting to some single issue, without caring that Donald Trump … wel…[Read more]

Reason is a BASIC requirement of logic.

10 LET X = 1 ‘ Assume X is a logical value, where 1 represents TRUE and 0 represents FALSE
20 IF X = 1 THEN GOTO 30
25 GOTO 50
30 PRINT “Continuing because X is logical (TRUE).”
40 GOTO 60
50 PRINT “X is not logical (FALSE), going to end.”
60 END

We have plenty of firearms.

If there is a revolution I am sure that some of the 180,000 active duty marine corps will be able to handle them. Once it is declared a national emergency or an insurgency they will get out of bed (both of which are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act). Then they can go back for their breakfast.

He thinks he is a…[Read more]

I guess that sounds childish, but sometimes, exasperated words fail me.

I know four people who support Trump, and they’re all exceptionally intelligent and nice.  So, I don’t get why they don’t smell him a mile off.  He’s a master manipulator.

PopeBeanie wrote:
(Hey buddy, stump rhymes with Trump!)

I guess they’re so stupid that they don’t know they’re stupid, and that Trump is stupid, and that Trump is a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

_Robert_ wrote:
Actually, even the logical construction of the premise is incorrect

You’re right.  If someone is a rapist then they are automatically a criminal.

_Robert_ wrote:
Actually, even the logical construction of the premise is incorrect because of the use of ‘OR’. This implies that a migrant can’t be a mental patient AND a criminal AND a rapist. This first statement needs to be proven true before any rational inferences may be made about it.

“Or” is the oddball logical operator because it comes…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion.

This is what I’m saying. Sometimes the premises given aren’t true, but a logically-formed argument can be made out of them. E.g. Donald Trump – “All migrants are rapists, criminals or mental patients.” “X is a migrant.” C…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion.

This is what I’m saying.  Sometimes the premises given aren’t true, but a logically-formed argument can be made out of them.

E.g.  Donald Trump – “All migrants are rapists, criminals or mental patients.”  “X is a migrant.”  Conclusion:  “X is a rapi…[Read more]

@ Simon

No. True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion. If it doesn’t, there is a disturbance in the force.

If you disagree, provide an example.

Unseen wrote:
C.S. Peirce brilliantly realized that people don’t reason with propositional deduction or even with induction most of the time

Yes, but something can be logical without being true.  A clever speaker uses sophistry and emotion to sway their credulous audience.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
– **Balance Between Reason and Imagination**: Blake did not reject reason entirely but advocated for a balance between reason and imagination. He saw the two as complementary forces

I think it’s possible to reason creatively: to come up with new ideas.

Blake sees reason not as a liberating force, but as one that c…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
I think reason is the problem half the time.  There is something in propositional logic, that states that a set of propositions can have internal validity – they are logical – they follow reason – without being true overall.

C.S. Peirce brilliantly realized that people don’t reason with propositional deduction or even with i…[Read more]