Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
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...
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...
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Actually, it goes like this:
Premise 1. John is human ( A ∈ C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B ∈ C )
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Yes, that's how you would avoid the problem, but you have just introduced an ambiguity in the verb "is".
The sky is blue. A ∈ C
The light is off. B ∈ D
Don't think so
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Almost everyone translates "is" as "∈" in such a context. That's how the human brain usually works.
Your brain doesn't seem to process context however, so you will never understand English. You are one of the few exceptions (as I already mentioned a few dozen times).
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Obviously that's what everybody does!Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:33 pm Almost everyone translates "is" as "∈" in such a context. That's how the human brain usually works.
Your brain doesn't seem to process context however, so you will never understand English. You are one of the few exceptions (as I already mentioned a few dozen times).
I am merely pointing out that you aren't solving the problem - you have just moved it elsewhere!
You have made a grammatical error.
You have used the word 'is' in two different senses within the same sentence.
And in the spirit of 'moving problems rather than fixing them' you switch contexts. Because that's the only way to explain why the verb 'is" is overloaded.
For somebody who claims to reject dualism, you sure don't mind dualistic language and pluralistic contexts.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
There is no problem. You don't know this about humans, but almost everyone else's brains automatically make the same context switches. It's how we process a language like English.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:36 pmObviously that's what everybody does!Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:33 pm Almost everyone translates "is" as "∈" in such a context. That's how the human brain usually works.
Your brain doesn't seem to process context however, so you will never understand English. You are one of the few exceptions (as I already mentioned a few dozen times).
I am merely pointing out that you aren't solving the problem - you have just moved it elsewhere!
You have made a grammatical error.
You have used the word 'is' in two different senses within the same sentence.
And in the spirit of 'moving problems rather than fixing them' you switch contexts. Because that's the only way to explain why the verb 'is" is overloaded.
For somebody who claims to reject dualism, you sure don't mind dualistic language and pluralistic contexts.
There is only a problem for those whose brains don't do this.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
OBVIOUSLY.
I am merely pointing out that ambiguity is the root-cause of context-switching.
If you hadn't overloaded the meaning of the word "is" you wouldn't have to context-switch...
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
I wouldn't call it ambiguity or overloading, nor is that really a cause. But it must seem like that to you.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
You wouldn't call it overloading but a linguist would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload
In the CONTEXT of this argument the word "is" has two different meanings.In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and is used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent constituent concepts
It's one argument.P1. John is human.
P2. Jane is human.
C. John is Jane
One context.
Why are you context-switching?
Did you choose to or did you have to?
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
No, here it isn't "used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent constituent concepts", because here almost everyone understands how to process each sentence.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:54 pmYou wouldn't call it overloading but a linguist would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overloadIn the CONTEXT of this argument the word "is" has two different meanings.In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and is used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent constituent conceptsP1. John is human.
P2. Jane is human.
C. John is Jane
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
*sigh
P1 A = B
P2 B = C
C. A = C
Why aren't you context-switching here?
Silly dualist. There is only one context! It's called The Universe.
If you are context-switching (in order to avoid inconsistencies) you are not a monist. FIx your language
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Because this is just formal logic now, which doesn't really have contexts.
All this has nothing to do with monism or dualism (I'm neither btw).
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
Maybe I am not using the same word you use but I think our conceptions are the same.
I've seen you argue against mind-independence (against the dualism of the Cartesian theatre).
Because the Cartesian theater splits the world into two contexts.
Never mind the world - you've split up a 3-line argument into two contexts.
If formal logic doesn't have contexts then why did you have to context-switch?
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!
What lies beyond monism is pretty off topic here.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:03 pmMaybe I am not using the same word you use but I think our conceptions are the same.
I've seen you argue against mind-independence (against the dualism of the Cartesian theatre).
Because the Cartesian theater splits the world into two contexts.
Never mind the world - you've split up a 3-line argument into two contexts.