Philosophy Now Forum

But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction. Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I hav...

On your promise of proving that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language in intuitionistic logic? You said this previously: But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction. Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought ...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:59 pm

On your promise of proving that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language in intuitionistic logic? You said this previously:

But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction.

So, that's you final say on the matter?

Are you giving up then? On? On your promise of proving that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language in intuitionistic logic? You said this previously: You have set yourself up for disappointment. You have contrived an impossible challenge. A game that cannot be won given the rules ...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:49 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:48 pm

There is still the law of non-contradiction.

Sorry. That is an appeal to authority. Such a 'law' does not exist.

Are you giving up then?

How can that be a contradiction if contradictions don't exist? I thought it's a law? Now you are asserting a contradiction? So contradictions DO exist? What kind of a 'law' is this?!? I told you all of classical logic is in my trash can - you don't believe me. You have chosen intuitionistic logic, ...

Once you handle the above challenge then we can focus on this lie: Against! Because now, the expression “thoughts which cannot be expressed in language,” is referring to thoughts that cannot be expressed in language!! And we have a contradiction! No. We started here, and we will have to end it here...

Ohhhhhh! MENTIONING a thought (e.g the unidentifiable taste) is sufficient for expression? Yes. An important correction though, “the unidentifiable taste” is not yet a thought but just an expression and in a sentence it called a noun phrase. The thought was: “I have an unidentified taste in my mout...

So here is your archetypal syllogism. Socrates is a man All men are mortal Therefore Socrates is mortal This is an AAA:1 syllogism which can also be stated like this. All S are M All M are P Therefore all S are P When I put an "all" in front of Socrates the major premise it no longer makes sense. A...

Then allow me to rephrase. Of course. Contradiction stems from lack of precision. Contradictions occur by upholding contradictory statements, whether these statements are precise or not. So my thoughts are language now? ;) And yet you keep drawing a distinction between 'thoughts' and 'language' thr...

That condition is imposed by intuitionistic logic itself! You cannot reject that condition in intuitionistic logic, while it is you who wanted to go in intuitionistic logic!! That was your own choice, no one forced you. So, are you running away from intuitionistic logic now? Remark, I am still ALSO...

The interesting thing in all this is that I have already imposed a necessary condition for the existence of a thought that it be expressible in language, exactly complying with the demands of intuitionistic logic. I am already done in intuitionistic logic! A condition which I reject, That condition...

Either way, you have not demonstrated the possibility of a thought that cannot be expressed in language! You have set yourself up for disappointment. You have contrived an impossible challenge . There are some inaccuracies in the above quoted statement you made. Firstly, the challenge was not from ...

Not sure where you study, but in my field (real-world problem solving) step 1 is conceptualising the problem. Step 2 is asking why it is a problem. And MAYBE step 3 is defining the problem. Definitions/language are not important until you start the collaborative process. Much before that! I meant t...

Naturally, but given your agreement with all of the examples I have proposed it seems to me that there is no communication medium that you DON'T consider to be 'language'. And so any form of successful self-expression is 'language'. And so your claim is tautological? Absolutely! However, on this ma...