Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Arising_uk]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )

By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

You can now go and blame Aristotle for identity politics...

Shouldn't we be blaming mathematicians?
As in predicate logic you'd just be saying;

human(John).
human(Jane).
Not sure how'd you get John is Jane from this?

[Atla]

What lies beyond monism is pretty off topic here.

OK. but you aren't beyond monism.

You are on the wrong side of Cartesian dualism.

You can't even read a 3 line argument without splitting it into parts.
You'll probably turn the universe into chopped mince.

Again: most people's brains process context.

So they will normally interpret "is" two different ways in those 3 lines.

That's normal.

This has pretty much nothing to do with Cartesian dualism or monism, no idea where you got that from.

We CAN interpret "is" only one way. You actually are that stupid to believe that people can't do that if they want to?

Except then all communication in English (or pretty much any other language that uses both hemispheres of the human mind) breaks down, becomes unusable.

Do you get it now?

[Logik]

What lies beyond monism is pretty off topic here.

OK. but you aren't beyond monism.

You are on the wrong side of Cartesian dualism.

You can't even read a 3 line argument without splitting it into parts.
You'll probably turn the universe into chopped mince.

Again: most people's brains process context.

So they will normally interpret "is" two different ways in those 3 lines.

That's normal.

This has pretty much nothing to do with Cartesian dualism or monism, no idea where you got that from.

We CAN interpret "is" only one way. You actually are that stupid to believe that people can't do that if they want to?

Except then all communication in English (or pretty much any other language that uses both hemispheres of the human mind) breaks down, becomes unusable.

Do you get it now?

I'll start another thread so we can fix the bug in your brain. And so that you can understand that context-switching is directly related to monism/pluralism.

For now - this is the problem with your "solution'

P1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
P2. Jane is Human ( B ∈ C )
P3. John is Jane ( A ∈ B )

Ooops!

[Atla]

OK. but you aren't beyond monism.

You are on the wrong side of Cartesian dualism.

You can't even read a 3 line argument without splitting it into parts.
You'll probably turn the universe into chopped mince.

Again: most people's brains process context.

So they will normally interpret "is" two different ways in those 3 lines.

That's normal.

This has pretty much nothing to do with Cartesian dualism or monism, no idea where you got that from.

We CAN interpret "is" only one way. You actually are that stupid to believe that people can't do that if they want to?

Except then all communication in English (or pretty much any other language that uses both hemispheres of the human mind) breaks down, becomes unusable.

Do you get it now?

I'll start another thread so we can fix the bug in your brain. And so that you can understand that context-switching is directly related to monism/pluralism.

For now - this is the problem with your "solution'

P1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
P2. Jane is Human ( B ∈ C )
P3. John is Jane ( A ∈ B )

Ooops!

Looks like you don't have the ability to understand the above in some way.

[Logik]

Again: most people's brains process context.

So they will normally interpret "is" two different ways in those 3 lines.

That's normal.

This has pretty much nothing to do with Cartesian dualism or monism, no idea where you got that from.

We CAN interpret "is" only one way. You actually are that stupid to believe that people can't do that if they want to?

Except then all communication in English (or pretty much any other language that uses both hemispheres of the human mind) breaks down, becomes unusable.

Do you get it now?

I'll start another thread so we can fix the bug in your brain. And so that you can understand that context-switching is directly related to monism/pluralism.

For now - this is the problem with your "solution'

P1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
P2. Jane is Human ( B ∈ C )
P3. John is Jane ( A ∈ B )

Ooops!

Looks like you don't have the ability to understand the above in some way.

I understood everything you said Just fine.

Did you understand what I said?

There is a bug in your brain. Nature made an error. I am the upgraded version.

[Atla]

I'll start another thread so we can fix the bug in your brain. And so that you can understand that context-switching is directly related to monism/pluralism.

For now - this is the problem with your "solution'

P1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
P2. Jane is Human ( B ∈ C )
P3. John is Jane ( A ∈ B )

Ooops!

Looks like you don't have the ability to understand the above in some way.

I understood everything you said Just fine.

Did you understand what I said?

There is a bug in your brain. Nature made an error. I am the upgraded version.

No, the bug is in your brain.

I can use both hemispheres if I want to, and I can also use a monist logic if I want to.

That's why formal logic was invented for example.

I can do both, you only know the latter.

You are an unfortunate downgrade. Do you get it now?

[Logik]

No, the bug is in your brain.

No, snowflake. You are switching contexts on a 3-sentence paragraph.

Can you say "inconsistent" ?

[Atla]

No, the bug is in your brain.

No, snowflake. You are switching contexts on a 3-sentence paragraph.

Can you say "inconsistent" ?

It's consistent with the consensus language which is English. You are the odd one here.

[Logik]

It's consistent with the consensus language which is English. You are the odd one here.

So? You are part of the mass-delusion.

[Logik]

human(John).
human(Jane).
Not sure how'd you get John is Jane from this?

That's the problem. You can't.

"John is human" and "John is Jane" are both grammatically correct even though unsound.

But if you are translating John is human to human(John), why aren't you translating "John is Jane" as Jane(John).

[Atla]

It's consistent with the consensus language which is English. You are the odd one here.

So? You are part of the mass-delusion.

What mass-delusion. Again: people can switch to formal logic if they want to.

[Logik]

What mass-delusion. Again: people can switch to formal logic if they want to.

Theists and atheists can switch to agnosticism too if they want to.

That mass-delusion.

[Atla]

What mass-delusion. Again: people can switch to formal logic if they want to.

Theists and atheists can switch to agnosticism too if they want to.

That mass-delusion.

I don't see the parallel

[Logik]

I don't see the parallel

Iterative self-improvement.

Find bug in reasoning -> fix bug in reasoning.

[Atla]

I don't see the parallel

Iterative self-improvement.

Find bug in reasoning -> fix bug in reasoning.

What bug in reasoning. Every half-decent thinker uses formal logic as a basis.