Oh. It's just that this thread was created with the intention of advertising for another thread another place. This is not usually allowed on any forum. Also it destroys the reason we have separate forums for different topics in the first place.RickLewis wrote:We're not on holiday yet! I'm here and iMod is here simultaneously this evening, and AMod is around somewhere.The Voice of Time wrote:paranoia has taken the forum, didn't you know?wleg wrote:Chaz,
What psychology state of mind results in your confused belief that I am the person on academia.edu? First, you accuse me of being Kelly
btw, admin must be on vacation ^^
What is it you think we should be reacting to?
In terms of slug-fests generally, we'd rather you all refrained from having them and always debated with the same courtesy and grace you'd employ if you were at a tea party at Lambeth Palace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Palace
However, back in the real world we let you sort out minor tiffs without intervening. However, we are moderating a bit more extensively now than in the past, so aggression and seriously bad language gets clobbered.
"Project Logic" #2
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Wayne,
I am a little, just a little, surprised that viewers have not yet responded to The Project's announcement that it will buy questions leading to answers that will enhance philosophical knowledge. It appears from lack of response that viewers believe the purpose of Philosophy is not to have a purpose except as a license to disagree.
Argument: If the purpose of something is that it does not have a purpose then most will agreed that something has the purpose of trash.
The obvious first question would be; “What is the purpose of Philosophy”. A realistic answer would certainly enhance philosophical knowledge, by my estimation, one thousand percent (1000%).
Kelly
I am a little, just a little, surprised that viewers have not yet responded to The Project's announcement that it will buy questions leading to answers that will enhance philosophical knowledge. It appears from lack of response that viewers believe the purpose of Philosophy is not to have a purpose except as a license to disagree.
Argument: If the purpose of something is that it does not have a purpose then most will agreed that something has the purpose of trash.
The obvious first question would be; “What is the purpose of Philosophy”. A realistic answer would certainly enhance philosophical knowledge, by my estimation, one thousand percent (1000%).
Kelly
Re: "Project Logic" moved
That, Rick, can't be true.RickLewis wrote: Forum areas like Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics are where most of the serious philosophical debate on this forum takes place.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
I don't think I have ever encountered two people with a more similar vocabulary and turn of phrase, as Wayne/Kelly
Re: "Project Logic" moved
This might explain. I'm the guy in the glider, at a younger age, and the guy wearing the headband at 5:30 and standing by the corn patch. Take a close look at the mulch around the tomatoes. The second video shows me vacuuming it from the yard. Picked twenty-five hundred lbs of tomatoes from two rows (170 plants), not including the ones the frost got. Don't get me started bragging about my garden, ooops too late.
http://www.gpb.org/georgia-traveler/sea ... y-aviation#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M3EJCKeMDs
http://www.gpb.org/georgia-traveler/sea ... y-aviation#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M3EJCKeMDs
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Wayne,
You should run a malware scan. Judging by the lack of response, I suspect your browser has been hijacked and directed your request for feedback to the "Philosophy of The Walking Dead Forum".
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2011/09/27/t ... 532008.jpg
Kelly
You should run a malware scan. Judging by the lack of response, I suspect your browser has been hijacked and directed your request for feedback to the "Philosophy of The Walking Dead Forum".
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2011/09/27/t ... 532008.jpg
Kelly
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Kelly,
You were right; my browser was hijacked and redirected my request for feedback to the wrong Philosophy Forum. The participants at the “Philosophy of the Walking Dead Forum” seemed nice enough, even a little too friendly, but I found it difficult to make sense of what they were saying. Finally it downed on me they were all saying the same thing over and over; “the purpose of something is not to have a purpose”,,,,, “the purpose of something is not to have a purpose”. I am glad to get back to this forum where the participants all make sense. And then it downed on me, why not ask the computer. I typed in the question; “how do words make sense”. In less than a minute, the computer searched the writings of all the philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries, discarded everything it found (The Project got a good deal on that computer), and spit out this answer:
Computer answers: The question identifies two concepts “words” and “sense” and asks; “what is the relationship words have to each other that makes sense. ARGUMENT: If a thing is itself, and not a another thing, because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, then it is possible to understand and make sense of a thing by using words that symbolize the attributes that relate to the existence of that thing. Words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
You were right; my browser was hijacked and redirected my request for feedback to the wrong Philosophy Forum. The participants at the “Philosophy of the Walking Dead Forum” seemed nice enough, even a little too friendly, but I found it difficult to make sense of what they were saying. Finally it downed on me they were all saying the same thing over and over; “the purpose of something is not to have a purpose”,,,,, “the purpose of something is not to have a purpose”. I am glad to get back to this forum where the participants all make sense. And then it downed on me, why not ask the computer. I typed in the question; “how do words make sense”. In less than a minute, the computer searched the writings of all the philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries, discarded everything it found (The Project got a good deal on that computer), and spit out this answer:
Computer answers: The question identifies two concepts “words” and “sense” and asks; “what is the relationship words have to each other that makes sense. ARGUMENT: If a thing is itself, and not a another thing, because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, then it is possible to understand and make sense of a thing by using words that symbolize the attributes that relate to the existence of that thing. Words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Kelly,
While Project Logic is waiting for a response concerning the possible change in the way it operates, would you discuss the implications of the computer's answer; “words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other”.
While Project Logic is waiting for a response concerning the possible change in the way it operates, would you discuss the implications of the computer's answer; “words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other”.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Wayne,
When people understand the implication of the answer to the question; “How do words make sense?”, the understanding could cause a significant change in the way people think. “Words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other”, reveals the nature of truth and the process of rational thinking. Constructing a true propositional statement by identifying things and conditions, symbolized by words, that relate to the existence of each other is the process of realistic thinking. When enough people understand this process it becomes more difficult to get away with making propositional statements that are not true.
Any true propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument because the things and conditions identified in the statement relate to the existence of each other. This is not to say everyone is capable of constructing the argument that supports the logic of a propositional statement. But, it is important for everyone to know every true statement must be able to be supported by a logical argument.
The implication of a critical mass (20 – 30%) of the world’s population understanding the process of realistic thinking is potentially so great it cannot be fully comprehended yet.
Kelly
When people understand the implication of the answer to the question; “How do words make sense?”, the understanding could cause a significant change in the way people think. “Words make sense when they symbolize things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other”, reveals the nature of truth and the process of rational thinking. Constructing a true propositional statement by identifying things and conditions, symbolized by words, that relate to the existence of each other is the process of realistic thinking. When enough people understand this process it becomes more difficult to get away with making propositional statements that are not true.
Any true propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument because the things and conditions identified in the statement relate to the existence of each other. This is not to say everyone is capable of constructing the argument that supports the logic of a propositional statement. But, it is important for everyone to know every true statement must be able to be supported by a logical argument.
The implication of a critical mass (20 – 30%) of the world’s population understanding the process of realistic thinking is potentially so great it cannot be fully comprehended yet.
Kelly
Re: "Project Logic" moved
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.
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.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Kelly,
The Project needs you, or anyone else interested in advancing philosophical knowledge, to summarize in the most condensed way possible why Philosophy has evolved to be the senseless state it exist in today.
The Project needs you, or anyone else interested in advancing philosophical knowledge, to summarize in the most condensed way possible why Philosophy has evolved to be the senseless state it exist in today.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Wayne,
The most condensed explanation is that philosophers have attempted to construct philosophical knowledge without understanding the nature of existence. Constructing knowledge in the philosophical area must begin with understanding the nature of existence to understand how knowledge is constructed. Philosophers have been confused from the beginning and attempted to explain what they could not understand by inventing complex terminology and isms. The Philosophy people identify with today is the philosophers themselves and their invented terminology and isms. Proof that philosophers have not constructed realistic knowledge is that none of their propositional sentences are grounded on logical argument.
This is as condensed as I know how to explain it. I recognize the reason for The Project asking for an explanation; philosophical knowledge and Philosophy cannot advance until people stop identifying with pseudo Philosophy. The question for everyone; would you rather understand the process of realistic thinking grounded on understanding the nature of existence or continue to shackle your thinking to senseless terminology and hopeless isms?
Advancing philosophical knowledge is not just a matter of philosophers developing the knowledge to understand the process of realistic thinking; it is a matter of philosophers teaching the knowledge to understand the process of realistic thinking. The existence of serious personal, social, economic and environmental problems are the result of humans thinking unrealistically.The future existence of mankind will be determined by our ability to think realistically or not about the nature of our own existence. And the only solution to these growing problems is for philosophers to teach the process of realistic thinking.
Kelly
The most condensed explanation is that philosophers have attempted to construct philosophical knowledge without understanding the nature of existence. Constructing knowledge in the philosophical area must begin with understanding the nature of existence to understand how knowledge is constructed. Philosophers have been confused from the beginning and attempted to explain what they could not understand by inventing complex terminology and isms. The Philosophy people identify with today is the philosophers themselves and their invented terminology and isms. Proof that philosophers have not constructed realistic knowledge is that none of their propositional sentences are grounded on logical argument.
This is as condensed as I know how to explain it. I recognize the reason for The Project asking for an explanation; philosophical knowledge and Philosophy cannot advance until people stop identifying with pseudo Philosophy. The question for everyone; would you rather understand the process of realistic thinking grounded on understanding the nature of existence or continue to shackle your thinking to senseless terminology and hopeless isms?
Advancing philosophical knowledge is not just a matter of philosophers developing the knowledge to understand the process of realistic thinking; it is a matter of philosophers teaching the knowledge to understand the process of realistic thinking. The existence of serious personal, social, economic and environmental problems are the result of humans thinking unrealistically.The future existence of mankind will be determined by our ability to think realistically or not about the nature of our own existence. And the only solution to these growing problems is for philosophers to teach the process of realistic thinking.
Kelly
Re: "Project Logic" moved
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, as if their life depended on it.
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.
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, as if their life depended on it.
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.