## Poll on the validity of two arguments

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

## Are these two arguments valid?

1st argument - Valid
4
25%
1st argument - Not valid
3
19%
1st argument - I don't know
1
6%
1st argument - The argument doesn't make sense
1
6%
2nd argument - Valid
4
25%
2nd argument - Not valid
3
19%
2nd argument - I don't know
0
2nd argument - The argument doesn't make sense
0

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:54 am
Hmm...don't think that is quite true as propositional logic is a logic and its not maths.
It is. Propositional logic is computation. Lambda calculus/type theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Propositions are types. Types are propositions.

https://gciruelos.com/propositions-as-types.html

surreptitious57
Posts: 3082
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logic wrote:
Logic and Mathematics are the same
Mathematics is a subset of logic [ all mathematics is logic / not all logic is mathematics ]
For example valid and sound arguments are an example of logic that is not mathematics

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:01 am
Mathematics is a subset of logic [ all mathematics is logic / not all logic is mathematics ]
For example valid and sound arguments are an example of logic that is not mathematics
Wrong.

Validity and soundness are subsets of decidability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)
Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.
Validity and soundness are deterministic if the language's grammar/semantics are formally defined (read: NOT open to interpretation)

Decidability is computation.
Computation is Lambda calculus.

Type theory is an alternative foundation for Mathematics (replaces set theory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

I am a type theorist. I explicitly reject set theory.

And you can go onto say things like language is thought and thought is language.
And thought/language is computation.

My parents always thought that I am weird for thinking that I am a computer.
I think you are weird for thinking that you aren't...

surreptitious57
Posts: 3082
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logic wrote:
And you can go onto say things like language is thought and thought is language
And thought / language is computation
Thought is non mathematical language because it is entirely subjective and does not have to be logical
And non mathematical language is descriptive not prescriptive and so is not as rigorous as mathematics

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:17 am
Thought is non mathematical language because it is entirely subjective and does not have to be logical
Gibberish.

What makes a "logic" are the set of rules which define its grammar/semantics.

If you follow the grammar/syntax/semantics you have subscribed to then your thoughts are "logical" and deductively valid.
If you don't follow the grammar/syntax/semantics you have subscribed to then your thoughts are "illogical" and deductively invalid.

It just means you promised (to yourself) that you will follow some set of rules, but you didn't.

The problem is the human mind sucks at keeping track of too many things. Like rules!

If a logic has 50 grammatical/semantic rules - you WILL fuck something up.
What programming language compilers/interpreters do is they tell you that you've broken a rule. Immediately!

With spoken/natural languages you don't have such rapid feedback. So you can't learn from your mistakes.
And these mistakes (through constant repetition) become norms.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:17 am
And non mathematical language is descriptive not prescriptive and so is not as rigorous as mathematics
All languages are descriptive.

"Go make me a coffee" describes a future in which you make me coffee.

You don't have to.

What is (supposed to be) prescriptive are the RULES of the language. Rules help us make less errors.
Same thing - you can develop the self-discipline to adhere to the rules. But you don't have to...

More rules - less errors. Less rules - more errors.

Choice is yours.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3082
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logic wrote:
If you follow the grammar / syntax you have subscribed to then your thoughts are logical
If you dont follow the grammar / syntax you have subscribed to then your thoughts are illogical
Following the rules of grammar / syntax does not automatically guarantee that your thoughts are logical
They will be logical within the context of the rules but they may be completely illogical outside of them

Irrational thoughts being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less irrational
Rational thoughts not being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less rational

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:34 am
Following the rules of grammar / syntax does not automatically guarantee that your thoughts are logical
Yes it does. By definition of what logic is! Structure.

"Logical" means "it follows the rules of logic".

If you mean something other by the word "logical" except "following the rules of logic" then you need to elaborate.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:34 am
They will be logical within the context of the rules but they may be completely illogical outside of them
To speak of logical things outside the rules of logic is non-sensical.

Logic is rules. Rules give structure. No rules -> no structure. No structure -> no logic.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:34 am
Irrational thoughts being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less irrational
I don't know what you mean by "rationality" or "irrationality". The way I use the word "rational" is actions which are aligned with my goals.

If killing puppies gives me pleasure then killing a puppy is rational towards attaining pleasure <---- this is logical.
Acting on the logical conclusion is rational towards attaining pleasure.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:34 am
Rational thoughts not being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less rational
This is not a way I would ever use the word "rational". There is logical thought and rational action.

I don't know what "rational" thought is and how it's different from "logical thought".

surreptitious57
Posts: 3082
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

I will rephrase it then for the sake of clarity

Immoral thoughts being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less immoral
Moral thoughts not being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less moral

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:45 am
Immoral thoughts being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less immoral
Moral thoughts not being expressed in the correct way will not make them any less moral
Morality is not the concern of logic. This is where your humanity steps in.

Logic/mathematics are just tools. Tools for thinking, tools for decision-making, tools for calculating consequences, tools for communicating.

You can use any tool for good or evil.

Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 pm
Well I only added two symbols and one of them is the equal sign, I think most people will understand this much. Could have written it as "is" I guess.
OK, so if I look at your formulation, what is missing is the original form that reflected the form of my initial argument on the conscious mind:
Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

The point of the formulation was to compel "reasonable" materialists to accept the premises as true, hence the "for all we know" and the "may be". This concerns soundness but the point of the argument was to be accepted not only as valid but as sound, too.
What I didn't expect was that so many people would find the modal "may" difficult, or at least this is what they say.
Atla wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:32 pm
1st
P1 - It's possible that: B(x) = A
P2 - C depends on B(x)
C - Therefore, it's possible that: C depends on A

2nd
P1 - It's possible that: some part of B(x) = A
P2 - C depends on some part of B(x)
C - Therefore, it's possible that: C depends on A
For validity, we don't care what kind of possibility is involved here, but if I had to assess soundness, I would ask. Logical possibility, OK, sound. Physical possibility, well, that's the point, for many interpretations, we don't know. Hence my "for all we know", which guts the difficulty.
EB

Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: The point of the formulation was to compel "reasonable" materialists to accept the premises as true, hence the "for all we know" and the "may be". This concerns soundness but the point of the argument was to be accepted not only as valid but as sound, too.
What I didn't expect was that so many people would find the modal "may" difficult, or at least this is what they say. ...
Go ahead then, post us your modal logic formulation of this argument.
Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

Atla
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:19 pm
Atla wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:30 pm
Well I only added two symbols and one of them is the equal sign, I think most people will understand this much. Could have written it as "is" I guess.
OK, so if I look at your formulation, what is missing is the original form that reflected the form of my initial argument on the conscious mind:
Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
EB

The point of the formulation was to compel "reasonable" materialists to accept the premises as true, hence the "for all we know" and the "may be". This concerns soundness but the point of the argument was to be accepted not only as valid but as sound, too.
What I didn't expect was that so many people would find the modal "may" difficult, or at least this is what they say.
Atla wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:32 pm
1st
P1 - It's possible that: B(x) = A
P2 - C depends on B(x)
C - Therefore, it's possible that: C depends on A

2nd
P1 - It's possible that: some part of B(x) = A
P2 - C depends on some part of B(x)
C - Therefore, it's possible that: C depends on A
For validity, we don't care what kind of possibility is involved here, but if I had to assess soundness, I would ask. Logical possibility, OK, sound. Physical possibility, well, that's the point, for many interpretations, we don't know. Hence my "for all we know", which guts the difficulty.
EB
Here I really tend to think that your argument is invalid. "Conscious mind" is conrete and "state of a group of neurons" is an abstraction, so the argument is begging the question by pre-supposing a dualism. I deliberately didn't do that in my formulation, I think your argument can't even be formalized, then.

Or maybe you really just mean that the neurons and EM fields etc. in the head are the conscious mind, which I agree with.

(Having said that, materialism also has a subtle form of dualism embedded in it. We need to divide the world into mental and material first, before we can discard the mental.)

Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:19 pm
Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person.
Here I really tend to think that your argument is invalid.
You're being irrational here because my conscious argument has broadly the same logical form as my second argument in this thread. If one is valid so is the other. I will guess you really meant "not sound".
And in this case, it is up to each of us to make his mind (according to the state of some group of neurons in their mind) as to whether the premises are true or not.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
"Conscious mind" is conrete and "state of a group of neurons" is an abstraction, so the argument is begging the question by pre-supposing a dualism.
???
I really don't see where I'm presupposing any dualism. In effect, the argument says it may be all the same thing, so quite the opposite of dualism.
What is not an abstraction about the physical world? The argument is merely suggesting that despite appearances to the contrary, this may be, for all we know, one and the same thing.
And here is a formalisation of the argument:
P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x / GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a) ≡ S(x)
P2 ◻ ∀b, ∃y / GNB(y, b) ∧ A(b) ≡ F(S(y))
C ◇ ∀c / A(c) ≡ F(C(c))
a and b are "a person"; x and y are "a group of neuron in a person's brain", C is the conscious mind and S is the state of the group of neurons x or y. A is what a person does, F is some function so that what a person does is a function of, or determined by, the state of a group of neurons.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
I deliberately didn't do that in my formulation, I think your argument can't even be formalized, then.
I can, but, as for my conscious mind argument, that doesn't help.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
Or maybe you really just mean that the neurons and EM fields etc. in the head are the conscious mind, which I agree with.
I'm agnostic about what would be the particular state of a group of neurons, but using the word "state" suggests something like a physical state, as yet unidentified.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
(Having said that, materialism also has a subtle form of dualism embedded in it. We need to divide the world into mental and material first, before we can discard the mental.)
Yes but you could go further. Materialism explicitly denies any ontological existence to qualia and subjective experience as "an illusion". Consciousness according to materialism, is entirely the objective phenomenon as can be observed by scientists. However, we all experience our qualia, but since science says our qualia have no physically existence, we are led to admit of two substances, qualia and the physical, hence a Dualism a la Descartes. My argument suggests maybe not.
EB

Atla
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:22 pm
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:19 pm
Here I really tend to think that your argument is invalid.
You're being irrational here because my conscious argument has broadly the same logical form as my second argument in this thread. If one is valid so is the other. I will guess you really meant "not sound".
And in this case, it is up to each of us to make his mind (according to the state of some group of neurons in their mind) as to whether the premises are true or not.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
"Conscious mind" is conrete and "state of a group of neurons" is an abstraction, so the argument is begging the question by pre-supposing a dualism.
???
I really don't see where I'm presupposing any dualism. In effect, the argument says it may be all the same thing, so quite the opposite of dualism.
What is not an abstraction about the physical world? The argument is merely suggesting that despite appearances to the contrary, this may be, for all we know, one and the same thing.
And here is a formalisation of the argument:
P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x / GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a) ≡ S(x)
P2 ◻ ∀b, ∃y / GNB(y, b) ∧ A(b) ≡ F(S(y))
C ◇ ∀c / A(c) ≡ F(C(c))
a and b are "a person"; x and y are "a group of neuron in a person's brain", C is the conscious mind and S is the state of the group of neurons x or y. A is what a person does, F is some function so that what a person does is a function of, or determined by, the state of a group of neurons.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
I deliberately didn't do that in my formulation, I think your argument can't even be formalized, then.
I can, but, as for my conscious mind argument, that doesn't help.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
Or maybe you really just mean that the neurons and EM fields etc. in the head are the conscious mind, which I agree with.
I'm agnostic about what would be the particular state of a group of neurons, but using the word "state" suggests something like a physical state, as yet unidentified.
Atla wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:29 am
(Having said that, materialism also has a subtle form of dualism embedded in it. We need to divide the world into mental and material first, before we can discard the mental.)
Yes but you could go further. Materialism explicitly denies any ontological existence to qualia and subjective experience as "an illusion". Consciousness according to materialism, is entirely the objective phenomenon as can be observed by scientists. However, we all experience our qualia, but since science says our qualia have no physically existence, we are led to admit of two substances, qualia and the physical, hence a Dualism a la Descartes. My argument suggests maybe not.
EB
Very well, then maybe we are saying the same thing after all. I just found your choice of English words, and this random mixing of abstract and concrete, very confusing, as in formal logic we don't mix two incompatible sets of variables either.

Anyway yes, of course the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same, this view is also supported by 100% of scientific knowledge, refuting materialism as well. The entirety of Western philosophy since the ancient Greeks seems to be refuted and we are left with a variant of nondualism (Eastern non-monistic nondualism) which is the simplest, default worldview.

Age
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:18 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:42 pm
If you start an argument with "As far as 'we' know ...", and you want to know whether the argument is valid or not, from another's perspective, then I am telling you from MY perspective I need to KNOW who/what is the 'we' that you are referring to before I could correctly answer your question
There's only one way to interpret "we" and it is to see it from your own perspective as you're reading the argument.
But the way I SEE 'we' may be very different from the way you mean it. That is the very reason for the clarifying question. Only you know what you mean.

You could have used 'we' to mean you and I, or you and your family and/or friends, or you and your work group, or you and your country people, or you and your culture group of people, or you and your race group, or you and your religious or faith group, or you and the group of all living people, or you and your species, or you and some thing else. So, there are many ways to interpret the word 'we'.

I have NO idea what you meant when you used the word 'we' here, and if you can not or do not want to clarify who/what you are referring to, then so be it.

But do not expect any person to be able to correctly answer if YOUR argument is valid or not, if you are going to start YOUR argument with the words; "As far as 'we' know ...."

Besides the fact you will NOT clarify who/what the word 'we' is referring to, even if one was to know who/what that is referring to a person can only KNOW what they, themselves, know. A person does NOT know all of what other people know, so to start an argument by saying "As far as 'WE' know ..." is so ambiguous that no person could accurately say if the argument is valid or not. Or, every person might have to admit that the argument HAS TO BE valid because "As far as we know" could apply to just about absolutely everything.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:18 pm
Still, if you read the argument without being able to make up your mind as to who are "we", then so be it, there's nothing I can do for you.
But I can very easily decide who the 'we' is that you are referring to, but, obviously, it would only be an assumption. And, I do not like to make assumptions, thus the very reason WHY I asked you a truly open and very simple and easy clarifying question.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:18 pm
And don't blame me.
EB
Why would you even think up an assumption like this here?

If you can not or will not clarify some thing that you, yourself, wrote, then that is NOT blaming you, that is just a FACT.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests