"Project Logic" #1

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

Kelly,
While pondering the nature of trolls, it occurred to me that fire-ants might not be without purpose as we have always believed. Four stakes and a little cord would create purpose for these ants most satisfying to deal with trolls. I will continue to ponder for the maximum satisfaction possible from use of this technique. In the mean time, The Project will utilize the excellent techniques of your suggestions.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by tillingborn »

wleg wrote:Small print: Project Logic may or may not be hypothetical or it might be a test to determine if what it seeks to accomplish is possible.
It's both, frankly, isn't it?
wleg wrote:The goal of The Project is to develop philosophical knowledge using the internet to connect with those who have the same goal and the desire to collaborate.
kelly wrote:There has never been a system in place that encourages doing philosophy in a logical systematic way.
What’s yours? Everyone who does philosophy believes they are using the ‘right’ way of thinking, that will inevitably lead to everyone agreeing with them; some have been bold enough to tell others how to do it:

Aristotle's Organon, Bacon’s New Organon, Descartes' Discourse on Method, Hegel's Dialectic, Russell's logical Atomism, Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Logical Positivism, etc, etc, etc. How many do you want?

'Think like me and you will think like me'. No thanks. When everyone starts agreeing it's the end of philosophy.
I am sorry that in your 15 years of participating in forums you have met with hostility; it’s what happens when you air your opinions. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, but most people, if you treat them like idiots, will take offence.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

tillingborn,

You don’t have to agree with me or anyone when they say 2 + 2 = 4, but you do. How do you explain then that you shouldn't have to agree that; “understanding the nature of knowledge is grounded on understanding the nature of the existence of things and conditions we can have knowledge about”? Explain how you shouldn’t have to agree about the things and conditions important to the satisfactory state of our existence when agreement about these things is the most important condition there is to the satisfactory state of our existence? The Project is not asking for agreement about anything. It is merely asking to buy propositional sentences, supported by logical argument, that everyone can agree with.

Would you make the propositional statement: “There is not any knowledge I should have to agree with”? I doubt you would. I would make the statement though: “There is not a single propositional sentence written by philosophers in the last twenty five centuries that has been supported by a logical argument”. The concern of The Project is having philosophical statements that we can all agree with because they are supported by logical argument. You can agree with this goal, or not, just like you can agree that 2 + 2 = 4 or not, and you can sell propositional sentences to The Project or not depending whether they are supported by logical argument or not. Philosophy is about constructing philosophical knowledge that no reasonable person can disagree with.

BTW, your user name could indicate you have earthy, gardening, farming interest. If so, you and I will have far more we can agree on than we can possibly disagree about.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

tillingborn,

BTY, concerning my fifteen years experience with trolls, I actually enjoy cutting the legs off trolls at the knees. If it were not for having a sincere interest in advancing philosophical knowledge, I would make troll wasting my occupation. Unfortunately, when one is attempting, in a thread, to construct philosophical knowledge systematically, the effort is easily destroyed by the distraction of trolls. The Project is thinking seriously about asking Kelly to start a thread called "Wasting Trolls" or "The Proper Way to Gut a Troll" or whatever Kelly wants to call it.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

The condition of agreement has been brought up along with the opinion that unlike any other area of human knowledge it is not desirable in Philosophy to agree about anything, else Philosophy could not exist. I agree, oops was I supposed to agree or not.

The pseudo Philosophy that is the accumulated unsupported propositional sentences written by philosophers over the last twenty-five centuries certainly can not exist if Philosophy becomes the accumulated propositional sentences supported by logical argument that define the philosophical concepts. The important difference between pseudo Philosophy and logical Philosophy is that logical Philosophy reveals the process of rational thinking grounded on understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. And pseudo Philosophy is the extreme impediment to mankind understanding the process of rational thinking because philosophers have never understood the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed thus can’t understand the process of rational thinking.

The Project is going to change the way it operates and ask direct questions, for example: Which process of thinking do you believe to be the most beneficial to a satisfactory state of human existence?
1- Rational thinking
2- Irrational thinking
It doesn't matter which way (1 or 2) you think is the right way, the right way is that we all disagree. Uccch ooooh this is going to be tricky, somebody is going to screw up and agree with somebody else that the answer is #1. We can’t have that, ever notice that pseudo Philosophy never ask direct questions like Science does?
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

When a any goal requires thought to accomplish, there may be two choices, a systematic process of thought, and an unsystematic random-like process. Which one is used depends on whether or not the thinker understands the systematic process. Obviously, if one does not understand the systematic process, the thinker doesn't have a choice and by default will think unsystematically and random-like.

The process of thinking about anything can be systematic, random-like or somewhere in between depending on the level of knowledge the thinker has to think with. Unlike any other thinkers in any other fields of thought, it is imperative for philosophers to understand the nature of knowledge itself. Philosophers have never understood the nature of knowledge and their thinking process has been unsystematic and random-like from the beginning. If this sounds like bashing Philosophy and philosophers that is not the intent. The intent is to make the point how doing philosophy has been done and put doing philosophy on the right track.

The difficulty of accomplishing this is that the credence and authority of Philosophy results from the fact that philosophers have been thinking unsystematically for so long, twenty-five centuries. How can Philosophy not have credence when it has existed so long? Well, it didn't hurt for philosophers to spread the rumor around that philosophers are the smartest people who have ever lived, either.

Those who think unsystematically and irrationally are always at odds with those who think systematically and rationally resulting in all human conflict. The only possible way to eliminate human conflict and the serious personal, social and economic problems caused by irrational thinking is for everyone to understand the process of rational thinking. If Philosophy and philosophers have to change tracks, they are twenty-five centuries overdue.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

The process of revolutionizing Philosophy is the process of thinking systematically to develop original knowledge to replace the pseudo knowledge philosophers have created in the past twenty-five centuries. Is all the philosophical knowledge created in the past centuries useless? We don’t know yet until we construct a realistic understanding of the nature of knowledge itself. Then any philosophical knowledge developed in the past, pseudo or realistic, can be judged by this new realistic understanding. One might think this project would attract a multitude of willing and enthusiastic participants. Quite the contrary. Everyone who identifies his or herself with Philosophy and the ideas of past philosophers, without exception, will be vehemently opposed to this effort. Discrediting the ideas that one identifies his or herself with is a serious threat to that person’s psychological existence and to their self-esteem. The need for self-esteem is the strongest human need. This makes the effort to revolutionize Philosophy extremely challenging on a philosophy forum because of the hostility it provokes in those who identify themselves with Philosophy. Next: Meeting the Challenge

Wayne Leggette Sr.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

Meeting the Challenge:

Living is the ultimate challenge, especially for those with a brain who don’t "know" the best way to use it. The human brain evolved over millennium, by process of gene selection, to make human existence less challenging. Unfortunately, the evolution of the philosophical knowledge necessary to know the best way to use our brain slowed and stopped during the last twenty-five centuries.

The only best way for humans to use our brain is to systematically conform our process of thought to the existence of the things and conditions we are attempting to understand and not attempt to conform the existence of those things to our thinking. A systematic rational process of thinking is grounded on understanding the nature of existence itself. Philosophers have never understood the nature of existence and instead of admitting their inability they invented mind wrenching terminology and ISMs that disguised their inability. It is not to say this was purposely done to confuse the process of rational thinking; it was merely the result of their unsystematic thinking. Philosophers have gotten away with this for so long because their invented terminology and ISMs create an environment impossible to think rationally in. This environment is appealing to those who think irrationally and need something irrational to identify themselves with. Philosophy has been the Holy Grail to unsystematic thinkers who want to identify with the perception that philosophers are the smartest people on the planet.

What greater challenge for Project Logic than the goal of getting Philosophy on a logical track by influencing philosophers to conform their thinking to the existence of what they are attempting to understand and stop attempting to conform that existence to their senseless invented terminology and hopeless ISMs.

If this sounds like bashing Philosophy and philosophers that is not the intent, the intent is to identify and clear the obstacles to getting Philosophy on the right track. Undoubtedly this has created hostility, but reasoned hostility cannot be directed at The Project. Those who are hostile identify with a Philosophy on the wrong track. Help get Philosophy on the right track and continue to identify.... Next: Getting Philosophy on the Right Track.

BTW, those of you who recognize the accumulated writing thus far can be better written will have your chance. The Project has money set-aside for rewriting if and when enough propositional sentences are collected to finish The Project.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by Impenitent »

Hume is laughing

-Imp
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

Impenitent,

The Project will pay "up to" one hundred dollars ($100) if you will support any truth in your propositional sentence with a logical argument.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by chaz wyman »

Impenitent wrote:Hume is laughing

-Imp
I think he's turning in his grave!
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

chaz,

If you think Hume is turning in his grave, explain the logic behind your thinking.
Last edited by wleg on Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

Announcement:

Project Logic is changing the way it has been operating. Instead of offering to buy propositional sentences, grounded on logical argument, that enhance philosophical knowledge, The Project will buy questions whose answers, grounded on logical argument, enhance philosophical knowledge.

The Project has acquired an off lease business computer, installed more memory, and installed all the writings of all the philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries. The computer is programmed to answer questions by first searching the writings of all the philosophers, discard what it has found, and construct original knowledge to answer the questions. .

This is where participants on the PN Forum get involved. You supply the questions. The only variable in the process is whether or not the questions you supply are the right questions and are, or not, in systematic order. The Project will pay ten dollars (10 carrots) for each question if it is in systematic order.

Being in systematic order means first question first and second question second, not first question second and second question first. Visualize it this way; imagine all the knowledge necessary to revolutionize Philosophy in a book ("The Book of Logical Philosophical Knowledge"). Each propositional sentence in the book is an answer to a question and needs to be in systematic order or nothing if little in the book would make sense. The Project realizes it will be almost impossible to submit questions in perfect systematic order. No problem, we’ll work it out together. After the questions are submitted and before they are entered in the computer, we will collaborate and decide the order they should be entered.

The Project will start three new threads, one, ONLY FOR COLLECTING THE QUESTIONS, NO DISCUSSION, another thread for discussing which order the question should be submitted to the computer, and another thread for the computers’ answers.

At this point in time, The Project needs feedback before it continues to implement the changes. Let’s hear what those who participate on this Forum think.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

ANNOUNCEMENT:

In case Project Logic did not explain clearly enough the way it is changing the way it operates, here is another attempt. Instead of The Project buying propositional sentences it believes enhance philosophical knowledge submitted by participants on this forum; The Project will buy questions whose answers it believes will enhance philosophical knowledge. The questions will be submitted to a computer programmed to construct philosophical knowledge by recognizing the relationship the concepts identified by the question have to the existence of each other and to other concepts not identified by the question. IOW, the computer is programmed to recognize that realistic philosophical knowledge is a construct of understanding the nature of the relationship that philosophical concepts have to each other and construct answers that reveal the relationship. The Project will pay ten dollars ($10) for each question whose answer enhances philosophical knowledge, and the requirement that the questions be submitted in systematic order has been dropped.

BTW, the computer’s name is Socrates (System of conceptual relationships and the end of senselessness).

Wayne Leggette Sr.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: "Project Logic"

Post by wleg »

Announcement:

Achieving the goal of any project is determined by whether the techniques used are the right techniques. The goal of Project Logic is to determine if it is possible to collaborate with other participants on a philosophy forum to collect and assemble in systematic order propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge. The evidence indicates that the techniques used to encourage collaboration do not work. Therefore, The Project is changing the way it operates. From this point on,The Project will utilize Socrates to construct philosophical knowledge supported by logical argument and anyone able to disprove that logic will be paid the amount offered by The Project. This should be interesting as most participants on philosophy forums would rather disagree.

The Project would like to start a new thread in the General Philosophical Discussion category where there is the most traffic. If the thread is moved to another category, so be it. The name of the thread will be Project Logic #3. There will be two or three days before the new thread is created to have time for feedback. The name of the present thread "Project Logic" will be changed to "Project Logic" #1 and "Project Logic" moved will be changed to #2.

Wayne Leggette Sr.
Post Reply