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

[Speakpigeon]

All there is is an idea, the idea of bananas or the idea of apples. The idea of bananas is best described as an association of more basic ideas, like the mental visualisation of one or several bananas, perhaps the idea that it's a fruit, probably some idea as to the typical size of a banana etc.
You could think of that as the conjunction of several predicates. So?

No. I would think of it as an abstract class called a banana. With individual properties which are themselves abstract classes.
And then I would use INSTANTIATION to create one instance of one particular banana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_ ... r_science)

There is the abstract class "Banana".
There is the abstract class "Color"
Bananas have color
There is A particular banana.
There are the 10 bananas in my fridge.

Alright, I just realised you weren't talking about Aristotelian logic at all because you've no idea what it is so there's no point pursuing this conversation.
EB

[Logik]

All there is is an idea, the idea of bananas or the idea of apples. The idea of bananas is best described as an association of more basic ideas, like the mental visualisation of one or several bananas, perhaps the idea that it's a fruit, probably some idea as to the typical size of a banana etc.
You could think of that as the conjunction of several predicates. So?

No. I would think of it as an abstract class called a banana. With individual properties which are themselves abstract classes.
And then I would use INSTANTIATION to create one instance of one particular banana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_ ... r_science)

There is the abstract class "Banana".
There is the abstract class "Color"
Bananas have color
There is A particular banana.
There are the 10 bananas in my fridge.

Alright, I just realised you weren't talking about Aristotelian logic at all because you've no idea what it is so there's no point pursuing this conversation.
EB

Law of identity.
Law of excluded middle.
Law of non-contradiction.

Please express the following propositions in the thing which you call "proper logic"

There is the abstract class "Banana".
There is the abstract class "Color"
Bananas have color
There is A particular banana.
There are the 10 bananas in my fridge.

[Speakpigeon]

Alright, I just realised you weren't talking about Aristotelian logic at all because you've no idea what it is so there's no point pursuing this conversation.

Law of identity.
Law of excluded middle.
Law of non-contradiction.

You clearly don't understand the Law of Identity.
So, I will assume with 100% accuracy you also don't understand the rest.
Learn a bit of logic. It's not complicated and not difficult at all but you still have to work a bit at it.
For now, you're just a waste of time.

Please express the following propositions in the thing which you call "proper logic"

There is the abstract class "Banana".
There is the abstract class "Color"
There are the 10 bananas in my fridge.

Sorry, for various reasons, this does not make sense in English.
What's an "abstract class"?
What does this means "There are the 10 bananas"

Bananas have color

This is easy. I already showed you how t do it. You've just forgotten.

There is A particular banana.

Well, I guess it just means there's a banana. All bananas are particular bananas.
So, it's "there is a banana"...
Ok, easy, I already showed you how t do it. You've just forgotten.
EB

[Logik]

You clearly don't understand the Law of Identity.

You already admitted that you don't make decisions using logic so why do you think you understand the law of identity?
Furthermore - you refuse to respond to my challenge to tell the difference between two photos and reduce your uncertainty from 2 plausible hypotheses down to one answer. Sooooo

Hypothesis 1: Logik doesn't understahd the Law of Identity
Hypothesis 2: Speakpigeon doesn't understand the Law of identity

So, I will assume with 100% accuracy you also don't understand the rest.

You can't even tell the difference between two photos. Where did this 100% accuracy come from?
If you can't tell the difference between TWO things, at best you have 50% accuracy. It's called luck.

Learn a bit of logic. It's not complicated and not difficult at all but you still have to work a bit at it.
For now, you're just a waste of time.

Since Hypothesis 2 is the more plausible in this context, I am going to go ahead and just assume you are talking to yourself here in the 3rd person.

That is mighty fine advice!

This is easy. I already showed you how t do it. You've just forgotten.

Here it is! The Sophist backtrack dance!

There is A particular banana.

Well, I guess it just means there's a banana. All bananas are particular bananas.
So, it's "there is a banana"...
Ok, easy, I already showed you how t do it. You've just forgotten.
EB

You are a fucking Sophist.

[henry quirk]

the L of I sez: the thing is the thing, yeah?

ex.: Henry Quirk is Henry Quirk (accept no substitutes).

If so: why pages and pages of retread?

[Logik]

the L of I sez: the thing is the thing, yeah?

ex.: Henry Quirk is Henry Quirk (accept no substitutes).

If so: why pages and pages of retread?

The thing is the Thing. Henry Quirk is "the thing's" name

Is just language.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I know 'Henry Quirk,' is the placehoder: my point, again, is the L of I is 'the thing is thing (and no other)', yeah? The entity who calls himself Henry Quirk is the entity who calls himself Henry Quirk (and no other), yeah? The guy typing the words you're reading now is the guy typing the words you're reading now (and no other), yeah?

I get language/symbols are stand-ins, placeholders: the L of I refers to the thing for which the symbol stands (and no other), yeah?

If so: then the L of I is valid, yeah?

[Logik]

Yeah, I know 'Henry Quirk,' is the placehoder: my point, again, is the L of I is 'the thing is thing (and no other)', yeah? The entity who calls himself Henry Quirk is the entity who calls himself Henry Quirk (and no other), yeah? The guy typing the words you're reading now is the guy typing the words you're reading now (and no other), yeah?

I get language/symbols are stand-ins, placeholders: the L of I refers to the thing for which the symbol stands (and no other), yeah?

If so: then the L of I is valid, yeah?

I do remember that once upon a time you argued with me over "a man is a man is a man and I am not going to call him a woman".

Just saying

It's all just fucking language.

[henry quirk]

"I do remember that once upon a time you argued with me over "a man is a man is a man and I am not going to call him a woman". It's all just fucking language."

Indeed.

The placeholders may just be placeholders but, to have any use at all, the placeholders have to have some consistency or coherence.

So: when I say a 'man' is a 'man' even if he's lopped off his cock and dresses like a 'woman', I'm using placeholders with consistent, coherent meanings to make a statement about the entities those placeholders stand for.

I can also phrase it: XY is XY even it lops off the result of being XY and dresses like XX.

To me: the L of I is not about the placeholder but the 'thing' the placeholder is applied to.

[Age]

When you can answer the question Who am I ? properly and correctly then the I is defined

What is the proper and correct way to answer the question Who am I ?

Well that could take thousands upon thousands of years MORE to explain. It all depends on how Honest and Open one is, or Wants to be.

The 'proper and correct' way is encrypted within that last sentence.

And how will I actually know that it is the proper and correct way ?

Because you will KNOW that IF EVERY one else was Truly Honest and OPEN, then they could (and would?) come to the EXACT SAME conclusion.

If they do, then you will KNOW, FOR SURE.

[Speakpigeon]

ex.: Henry Quirk is Henry Quirk (accept no substitutes).

The thing is the Thing. Henry Quirk is "the thing's" name

No.
Henry Quirk is Henry Quirk. So he is not a name.
The name is "Henry Quirk".
So you're the true ignoramus. The guy who doesn't even notice that quote marks are linguistically functional.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

To me: the L of I is not about the placeholder but the 'thing' the placeholder is applied to.

That's what he doesn't get even though it's basic. If he knew any logic he would know Frege and Frege wrote a detailed analysis of the difference between what a word means and what the same word refers to. Old news and still news to him.
EB

[Logik]

To me: the L of I is not about the placeholder but the 'thing' the placeholder is applied to.

That's what he doesn't get even though it's basic. If he knew any logic he would know Frege and Frege wrote a detailed analysis of the difference between what a word means and what the same word refers to. Old news and still news to him.
EB

That is what you don't get even though it's basic.

You don't know what it meant to prove (In the Mathematical sense of the word) that 1 = 1, and that 99^99 = 99^99

You don't know what it means that there are integers for which "x = x" is UNDECIDABLE IN THIS UNIVERSE'S LIFETIME.
Do you know what undecidable means? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

The computational complexity of "x = x" JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF INTEGERS is infinite.
Which means that in infinite amount of time, across an infinite number of universes "x = x" cannot be proven true even for the INTEGERS.
But you assume it true.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

And you don't know that if it is infinite for the integers, it is infinitely more infinite for the natural numbers, infinitely infinitely infinitely more infinite for the real numbers. Infinitely more infinite complex numbers.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO FUCKING ENGLISH WORDS YET. We haven't gotten to physics, chemistry, biology, human nature, phenomenology, experience!

You truly have missed the forest for the trees. You truly have mistaken the complex for the simple.

That has always been the claim of Postmodern thinkers. There is TOO MUCH meaning; There is INFINITE meaning.
Through infinity rendering truth a trivial matter!

By accepting "for all x: x = x" as an axiom you trivialize ALL truth.

Because you don't know what computational complexity is.

You conflate identity with value.

Philosophy without technical input is sophistry. It is because you can't reason and think for yourself is why you keep appealing to "experts".

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/INTEGERS

Oh wait, I forgot. Computational logic is not your forte.

Try the English version: http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... smbook.pdf

[henry quirk]

As I say, I'm no logician. All I know is: the coffee cup I'm drinkin' out of as I hunt & peck this post 'is' the coffee cup I'm drinkin' out of and no other, so, as far as I'm concerned: 'A is A' is a valid statement.

[Logik]

As I say, I'm no logician. All I know is: the coffee cup I'm drinkin' out of as I hunt & peck this post 'is' the coffee cup I'm drinkin' out of and no other, so, as far as I'm concerned: 'A is A' is a valid statement.

Would you say that it's the same cup you were drinking out of 10 minutes ago, or a colder, emptier version of itself?