Notices
Results 1 to 37 of 37
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended

Thread: sigurdV on Philosophical Logic.

  1. #1 sigurdV on Philosophical Logic. 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Eh....Ahem... IS there something such as " Philosophical Logic"?

    If so, is that question itself a question to be considered
    within the frame of Philosophical Logic?

    Have we exhibited a question that belongs to a possibly new subject?

    I suspect the above is an existence proof, and (if so) a proper
    research object in the unexpected department of logic or/and philosophy.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Eh....Ahem... IS there something such as " Philosophical Logic"?
    Apparently.
    Philosophical Logic

    It even has a journal: Journal of Philosophical Logic - incl. option to publish open access


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Eh....Ahem... IS there something such as " Philosophical Logic"?
    Apparently.
    Philosophical Logic

    It even has a journal: Journal of Philosophical Logic - incl. option to publish open access
    THANKS!
    For once Ill go travelling.
    EDIT 1. I hadnt to travel very far though:

    "Philosophical logic, despite its name, is not a kind of logic, nor is it simply to be identified with the philosophy of logic.
    The philosophy of logic (or logics) is the philosophical examination of systems of formal logic and their applications."

    Any comments (clever and cautious) strange (who adds "apparently" where it belongs)?

    EDIT 2: There are as yet two definitions to consider: 1 "Philosophical Logic" and
    2 "The philosophy of logic" where apparently the "Natural" logic used by a brain is not investigated.
    Is the list of "kinds of logic" now complete?
    What is the logic used in the philosophical examination of systems of formal logic and their applications."?

    EDIT 3: Is there a need for a "Naive Logic"?
    Will Naive Logicians ever bother formalizing Naive Logic?
    Am I one of them? (Oh NO! Sig: You are not that naive but where exactly
    in the camps opposing you, are you located?)

    EDIT 4: Perhaps theres a need for a new topic? :
    sigurdV on the Philosophy of sigurdV??
    (Yes question for you this IS a question for you!)


    Last edited by sigurdW; August 20th, 2012 at 04:40 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Dear sigurd, I just noticed this thread!

    I would say yes also... Logic itself is essential to the practice of philosophy... but is there a certain type of 'philosophical logic' that can be distinguished from other forms of logic? yes I think so. The understanding and defininig of rational thought processes used in philosophical pursuits?

    Did I employ philosophical logic in the answering of this question? yes I think so, but I have no idea how.

    This question belongs to the subjects of truthism.

    I doubt the list of logics is complete... 'The logic s of the sig' springs to mind.

    The philosophy of logics is the philosophical examination of systems of formal logic and it's appliccations.

    Naive logic sounds something like the suspension of dis belief in order to press on with working out a problem that doesn't really make sense. Yes you are a naive logician by my definition! On the other hand the lable doesn't do you justice Sigurd!

    Yes... let us tackle the philosophy of SigurdV!

    Set it out for us Sig.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Logic, doesn't this state an electric circuit, or a mathematic equation? Isn't that what logic is, something psychological being understood by physical examples?
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    Naive logic sounds something like the suspension of dis belief in order to press on with working out a problem that doesn't really make sense. Yes you are a naive logician by my definition! On the other hand the lable doesn't do you justice Sigurd!

    Yes... let us tackle the philosophy of SigurdV!

    Set it out for us Sig.
    If I must then be it:

    IF,i said:IF,and rememberI said IF:
    I look at things differently it is because I decided that
    What I looked at was impossible! See for yourself...here we go:

    Question: How without forbidding self reference
    do you show that 3 does not follow here below?

    1 sentence 1 is not true
    2 sentence 1 ="sentence 1 is not true

    3 sentence 1 is true

    Once you see how, you never forget it!
    I see it... you dont! Damn your eyes!
    Its not as obvious as Cantors diagonal proof though.

    I think it would be easier for you to see
    if you try to show the negative...I mean:
    Show me that 3 really follows... prove every step

    I will give you a "bonus" step...here it comes:

    Sentence 1 is an assumption...
    you dont prove assumptions directly, they are assumed true.
    Nothing wrong in that is it?
    next move is yours!
    (To be edited)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Logic, doesn't this state an electric circuit, or a mathematic equation? Isn't that what logic is, something psychological being understood by physical examples?
    Check below there you see the "obvious" truth that
    1 and 2 implies 3...

    But since 3 negates 1 then you start spinning dont you?
    Its no use changing the truth value of 1 because 3 still is the negation of 1.
    it will always remain opposit to 1...Why?

    3 seems to follow whether 1 is true or not...
    So what is it I see that you dont?
    I assure you
    I WILL POINT IT OUT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    If 3 is true, then maybe it's talking about a different sentence one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    If 3 is true, then maybe it's talking about a different sentence one?
    What is preventing it to be as you suggest , The Truth?
    Ahem... what IS truth? Look at a similar example:

    1 sentence 1 has a number inside
    2 sentence 1 CAN BE...and sure is THE SENTENCE:"sentence 1 Has A Number Inside"

    3 "sentence 1 has a number inside" Has A Number Inside

    Now you MIGHT see! WHY DO WE BELIEVE statement 2 to be true?
    And what is the case if it is not true that statement 2 is true?

    I think you almost saw it... so you asked: Is a dream for once true?

    Heres the law as sV sees it: for every x theres a reference (x ="Qx")
    Where "x=Qx" orients us ... is a map of reality.

    In ordinary cases the reference is not a REAL sentence (says Alfred Korzybski)
    sV agrees they are virtual sentences missing the "reality" component.

    Do you see Q now?

    Look at the sun
    Eh I mean a real reference:

    1 this is the sun
    2 EXACTLY WHAT AM I STARING AT?
    3 this IS the real thing?
    4 if it were you are now blind!

    MY GOD! YOU ARE Q!? YES, LITTLE PIECE OF WATER: I NOW DECLARE YOU VAPOR!

    I agree, my friend,
    I do look at things
    in a strange manner,
    Medusa, my wife,
    is lovely indeed.

    Dont you agree,sculptor?
    All I do is proving that Q is.
    Im laughing behind my shield...
    You see me? Soon you wont...
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 23rd, 2012 at 02:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    We beleive statement two is true beause thats what sv told us.
    In the case that it is untrue Sv has lied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    We beleive statement two is true beause thats what sv told us.
    In the case that it is untrue Sv has lied.
    Pandora, your box is now open.
    the key is sentence one and the box is statement two.

    And I am delighted of the ingenuity of it all. I didnt paint the picture...
    The one who walks the way to three , has verified (empirically... in one frame)
    that sentence 1 has the number to the left it seems to have.

    But looking at the logical form of two we get:

    2 x = "Qx"

    heres the test formula:

    1 x=Qx
    2 Qx=QQx

    3 IF (x=Qx) THEN (Qx=QQx)

    LET Q = "not true"
    THEN the right side of the implication is false.
    THEREFORE the left side is also not true!

    Meaning statement 1 does not exist or only has no defined subject, is not referring to itself...
    Why dont YOU explain for a change.

    Give me something to drink or my name aint Sam Hall...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    If Qx=QQx...
    What does QQx equal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    If Qx=QQx...
    What does QQx equal?
    Guinness!
    Every formula can be understood...eh...translated into plain english.

    Since Q is approximated to " not true" we get:

    QQx = Its not the case that x is not true. And it reduces to "x is true"
    but to the left of (=) the translation of Qx is "x is not true
    so finally: (Qx = QQx) = ( x is NOT true = x is true)

    so contrary to your assumption (Qx = QQx) IS IN THIS CASE A CONTRADICTION!
    most predicates P does not have the Ouality of Q

    This so allegorically called pandoras box is slippery to hold
    Ive dropped it many times you must yourself carefully verify anything I tell you!
    I think you see Q now and If you do youre amazed and wont give up the fight?

    The Practical spin off is that sentence 2 is logically false AND empirically true...
    Proving that the laws of logic are prescriptions... You dont have to take the medicine keeping you alive! Compare with Natural Law: Inside a black hole you cant help being sucked into the naked singularity at its center. So obviously you cant go to three from two Cheers!

    To sum up: x=x ... its not the case that x is not itself ...if we make it so then we are outside Reality.
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 23rd, 2012 at 03:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    If Qx=QQx...
    What does QQx equal?
    Guinness!
    Every formula can be understood...eh...translated into plain english.

    Since Q is approximated to " not true" we get:

    QQx = Its not the case that x is not true. And it reduces to "x is true"
    but to the left of (=) the translation of Qx is "x is not true
    so finally: (Qx = QQx) = ( x is NOT true = x is true)

    so contrary to your assumption (Qx = QQx) IS IN THIS CASE A CONTRADICTION!
    most predicates P does not have the Ouality of Q

    This so allegorically called pandoras box is slippery to hold
    Ive dropped it many times you must yourself carefully verify anything I tell you!
    I think you see Q now and If you do youre amazed and wont give up the fight?

    The Practical spin off is that sentence 2 is logically false AND empirically true...
    Proving that the laws of logic are prescriptions... You dont have to take the medicine keeping you alive! Compare with Natural Law: Inside a black hole you cant help being sucked into the naked singularity at its center. So obviously you cant go to three from two Cheers!

    To sum up: x=x ... its not the case that x is not itself ...if we make it so then we are outside Reality.
    Guiness! at this time in the morning? oh go on then! cheers!

    So it doesn't not mean that a double negative equals a positive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    Guiness! at this time in the morning? oh go on then! cheers!

    So it doesn't not mean that a double negative equals a positive?
    I believe in double negation, Im not sure why you ask?
    Let negation be expressed as "neg" then x = neg neg x

    The Classic laws of logic are:
    1 law of identity
    2 Law of contradiction
    3 Law of the excluded middle

    Modern logic excludes (in despair)
    Self Reference altogether: IF x THEN neg(x=Qx)

    "Au contraire" I derive a testing formula for predicates:
    The Theorem of Self Reference: IF (x=Qx) THEN (Qx=QQx)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    I have been unable to improve on the topic... Since existence is at the forefront I might accept Existential Logic instead of Philosopical Logic, And perhaps I should consider myself as an Existential Philosopher, but "sharing tent" with Hegel Heidegger and Sartre makes me refuse the "honor"
    Id rather stay a Naive Philosopher. Who but a child would ask why the Emperor is naked?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Why does logic have to be so complicated? It just doesn't seem logical to me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    What are you Sig, a mathematician? a naive logician? what is naive logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Sig, I have only known you a few days and already i'm mentally and emotionally drained... I can't think anymore... your puzzles short circuit my ... er whats it called? the thing with all the pathways... circuit board!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Do you have difficulties in applying the formula?
    IF (x=Qx) THEN (Qx=QQx)
    Then lets do without it All we really need is brains:

    1 x = "x is not true"
    2 "x is true" if and only if
    "x is not true" is true

    All 2 is saying is that the left side of the identity
    must share truth value with the right side.
    The sentence simplyfies to a contradiction:

    3
    "x is true" if and only if "x is true"

    And we have proved that it is not true that x = "x is not true"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Do you have difficulties in applying the formula?
    IF (x=Qx) THEN (Qx=QQx)
    Then lets do without it All we really need is brains:

    1 x = "x is not true"
    2 "x is true" if and only if
    "x is not true" is true

    All 2 is saying is that the left side of the identity
    must share truth value with the right side.
    The sentence simplyfies to a contradiction:

    3
    "x is true" if and only if "x is true"

    And we have proved that it is not true that x = "x is not true"

    This is called naive logic is it?

    What use will these new nuero pathways I am creating be to me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Sig, I have only known you a few days and already i'm mentally and emotionally drained... I can't think anymore... your puzzles short circuit my ... er whats it called? the thing with all the pathways... circuit board!
    Interesting choice of word there... I might adopt it for my own secret reasons

    The problem I put in front of you is several thousand years old: youre expected to disintegrate +
    You survived very far! I dont think it will take you long to see its conclusion.

    Theres more to come but it can wait.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Do you have difficulties in applying the formula?
    IF (x=Qx) THEN (Qx=QQx)
    Then lets do without it All we really need is brains:

    1 x = "x is not true"
    2 "x is true" if and only if
    "x is not true" is true

    All 2 is saying is that the left side of the identity
    must share truth value with the right side.
    The sentence simplyfies to a contradiction:

    3
    "x is true" if and only if "x is true"

    And we have proved that it is not true that x = "x is not true"

    This is called naive logic is it?

    What use will these new nuero pathways I am creating be to me?
    I think you point towards my speculations on the foundation of consciousness...
    Hmmm if this is the thread "On the philosophy of sV", then Im allowed to answer.
    It occured to me just yesterday so my thinking is vague and shapeless yet ...eh...
    Ill think about it, If you ask me more openly about it.

    I almost forgot, Here is the proof:
    Question: How without forbidding self reference
    do you show that 3 does not follow here below?

    1 sentence 1 is not true
    2 sentence 1 ="sentence 1 is not true
    3 sentence 1 is true

    Answer: We now KNOW that
    it is not true that x = "x is not true"

    Then also we know
    that it is not true that sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"

    Therefore 3 does not follow! QED
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 23rd, 2012 at 10:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What are you Sig, a mathematician? a naive logician? what is naive logic?
    Im not a mathematician but math is beautiful sometimes.
    Im not a formal logician...Im not naive...How about Existential Logician?
    A bit too narrow I think
    ...elsewise its not too bad.

    Really...Im nothing! Adviced by Groucho Marx I wont accept classifications
    that doesnt put me in a single cathegory of my own

    By "Naive logic" was meant the logic Georg Cantor used, today it has a
    foul flavor it "allows paradoxes" it is said...But that is slander!

    After Cantor invented set theory the question of what to do with paradoxes
    accelerated and Zermelo (and others) decided to use logics where paradoxes
    cant be formulated... and neither can they be solved.
    So studying the anatomy of paradoxes has been left to me

    To this Ill add that the ancients possibly were aware of Q, their tales are not
    just stupid fairy stories, behind ideas like pandoras box,the garden of Eden and Medusa
    ... deeper philosophical meanings might have been inherited from very early times.

    Perhaps "god" originally WAS conceived of as what invented existence?
    How would WE know?

    PS I cant help ending this post on a family note:
    My son happened to hear me saying: Theres no limit to unluck!
    (Yes there is, he said, its limit is death!) My opposition is clear:
    MrZ has been the unluckiest man ever born: He dies and finds
    himself in paradise: Damn! How unlucky I am, he says....I wanted NIRVANA!
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 23rd, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I couldn't agree more that you are so right to refuse to accept lables that define you Sig.

    Your family anecdote is first class... It would blow my mind sitting at the breakfast table in your house i'm sure! Very philosophical.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Here is a quote where I started thinking of Mind and Moral, read it if you want, Ill do some thinking and editing this post Imput/response In lower animals instincts work as reflexes, the mind of the animal is not much more than what the Target seeker of a missile is.
    With humans not much is left of the reflex quality of instincts is left, in most cases we, our mind, presses the trigger!
    We experience the instincts as emotions...feelings...we are no total slaves of our "MORAL VALUES".
    But we are not masters of our moral we cant change the fact that we feel a certain way in a certain situation.

    I got this idea yesterday so forgive me for speculating but

    early in lifes history the nervous system used to interconnect what was going on inside the...eh...whatever... split into
    the sense collector and the senseprocessor and we are actually the sensecollector.

    We think that we are doing the thinking but we are mistaken WE ARE THE SELECTORS the processor is like them engineers laying out a piece of road. If we take a step on it the road gets extended...all WE can do is deviate from the road and the processor builds the new road we decided to drive on!

    Im saying that by not accepting the planned road we change the processor a little we teach it our preferences,
    There Im done thers no road I see to walk on t...a,lli can do is going back and check if there are faults in the road /thereby forcing the processor to.... Ah you get the point..

    EDIT: This developed out of the analogue desription of me as driving a car,having a passenger in the shielded private backseat that told me to take right in next corner...WHY? Well, we drivers most of the time do as we are told, we can stop the car but we cant get out of it, or see into the backseat. Who is this back seat driver? I wondered about that rather long, now I think I sort of found out who we both are End of quote I should collect other pictures to compere there are psychological terms to consider Hmmm looking in into those threds...BRB
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 23rd, 2012 at 01:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Instinctive mind is subconscious and a 'relic' or an inheritance from our evolution... It is still powerful enough to guide us through life, it is deep seated. Where does it really come from? how did we develop instincts?

    Intellectual mind is conscious and is able to rationalize and consider pros and cons of our actions. intellectual mind is able to consider instinctive actions or urges and rationalize them. It can try to work out what those urges are, why we have them etc. Intellectual mind tries to understand everything, but it can not.

    'Spiritual mind' is a higher form of mind than the intellect... it can sense and know things that the intellect cannot grasp. It knows that there is more to life than the intellect is aware of.

    Spiritual mind receives rare insights into the 'spiritual' reality of life which cannot be intellectualised... The intellect tries to work with these insights and knowings and tries to make sense of them in a million different ways. Intellectual mind exchanges information with spiritual mind, also with instinctive mind.

    Spiritual mind seems more like instinctive mind than intellectual mind... yet it is a higher form of mind than intellect. Intellect is limited to what it knows and can rationalise, spiritual mind has all the intellectual mind behind it, yet it goes further and in those rare moments is aware, it knows of things which the intellect cannot understand.

    Instinctive mind is animal like, it's a survivor. Intellectual mind can be developed enough to overide instinctive mind. Intellect can be used to witness instincts in action, and to rise above them, to understand them and there reasons. Using intellect, instincts can be laid aside and over ridden. Instincts can be recognised by the intellect as limited.

    Spiritual mind recognises the limitedness of intellect in understanding higher reality, or reality.

    Emotions are subconscious reactions to concious thoughts. They are instinctive in a sense but they are an instinctive response to conscious thoughts... therefor emotions are dictated and controlled by conscious thought cycles.

    Emotions are instinctive, yet instincts are not always if at all emotions.

    As we evolve, we seem to develop from instinctive thinkers into rational intellectual thinkers, into spiritual thinkers. All three stages of mind feed information to other types of the mind.

    The spiritual mind can persuade the intellect that instincts can be laid aside becuase they are not needed. If they are needed they will be readopted... if they are not needed for long enough certain instincts might be permanently discarded from the human psyche.

    What do you think of this sig?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    I will think.
    It might take some time.
    Your chosen subject is interestng.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdw View Post
    it might take some time.
    lmao
    sigurdW likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdw View Post
    it might take some time.
    lmao
    "lmao"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    'laughing my ass off', I think you're adopting some of my traits, which makes my laugh.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    [QUOTE=sigurdW;348537]I will think.QUOTE]

    Try thinking from each part of your mind... let me hear the response of each part of mind. It will be interesting to see the differences.

    Sig's Instinctive subconscious mind response: (probably evident in your last post, i.e 'think about it' etc)

    Sig's Intellectual mind response: (this will probably take time)

    Sig's Spiritual mind response: (this might be the result of months of meditation which you know to be true but you might not be able to rationalise or communicate using your intellectual faculties.)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Hm...actually I have started.//: Lately I have been thinking of moral matters and since without a mind to torture, moral seems not to be a necessary constituent of existence...so I decided to ... think again...Heh!

    So I identify three computers forming my first picture of ourselves. The first is processing info from senses and sends it to a "central" computer, busy handling all the internal affairs of the body. It analyses the info recieved and returns a decision outwards to be sent to the first computer who sends it to the hands or whatever.

    The "road" between them is heavily trafficked and the road itself changes character: what was once only the road for "info" and reflex turns sentient...it starts interfering...essentially saying yes, no, maybe, hurry up... or so. Thats us!

    This new computer(us) probably borrows from the pre existing computers, its not ONLY the road it may share parts of the endpoints of the road...But theres a wall between us and the central computer: we cant pass into it and how whats behind the wall sees us is unknown to us. (Also theres an obstacle on the road to the outside reality...)

    Well then this is my first stop://
    Edit:
    Sometimes the Earth Trembles...eh...no...its a resonance...Youre resting against a fence,
    a bus passes by and the fence starts vibrating if you close your eyes and ears you can still detect traffic!
    When I read #32 Then the Earth...well I guess im back at the beginning of my thought. cya.
    Edit2 Theres no damned "spiritial" levels around here... (WOPS DID I really make THAT horreur?
    and Im forbidden/(asked in a friendly manner) to NOT edit it out!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1)
    (Laughing!)
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 30th, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    'laughing my ass off', I think you're adopting some of my traits, which makes my laugh.
    Ahem:"laughing my g# off" is more diccreet.

    A big hug to all of you! (sob)

    (Keep cool sig:remember ZPEARING errors are holy!)
    sV:Yeah! Shut up as much as possible! Think (C)lam

    Last edited by sigurdW; August 30th, 2012 at 01:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Hm...actually I have started.//: Lately I have been thinking of moral matters and since without a mind to torture, moral seems not to be a necessary constituent of existence...so I decided to ... think again...Heh!

    So I identify three computers forming my first picture of ourselves. The first is processing info from senses and sends it to a "central" computer, busy handling all the internal affairs of the body. It analyses the info recieved and returns a decision outwards to be sent to the first computer who sends it to the hands or whatever.

    The "road" between them is heavily trafficked and the road itself changes character: what was once only the road for "info" and reflex turns sentient...it starts interfering...essentially saying yes, no, maybe, hurry up... or so. Thats us!

    This new computer(us) probably borrows from the pre existing computers, its not ONLY the road it may share parts of the endpoints of the road...But theres a wall between us and the central computer: we cant pass into it and how whats behind the wall sees us is unknown to us. (Also theres an obstacle on the road to the outside reality...)

    Well then this is my first stop://
    I like this, not so keen on a computor analogy... i think the senses go straight into a central computor, the central computor sends and recieves info to and from the 1st computor automatically which controls the internal automatic functions of the body, the central comp. recieves some info or feedback from the first comp.
    The central comp. also sends info to the second comp. which controls the external movements and functions of the body, it's actions.

    The road system is ever more complex yet there are vary few collisions, if cargo needs to be ferried back and forward to different computors then that will take longer and travel a further distance but it wont result in traffic jams. This is also a roadsystem that encourages speeding and benefits from it.

    Our bodies work like the autobarn, our minds clog up like a spaghetti junction...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    I synapse you guys (like ne: remark if the wrong letter is close to the letter supposed to be ther it s probably just becaust 1 is ...eh...long sughted?) I said; like me (3) is sometimes idle?
    Why not collect som modern sWedoRussian folklore?
    If so: Well Come To: (In particular: Dancing with the King of Stones)
    EDIT! ONLY YOU TWO!! (If want to say something call yourself MrWolf and MrBear)

    http://filosofiforum.com/

    Y
    ou dont read Swedish? Theres a translater isnt there? Translate but remember some sentences will seem crazy...probly anything I write lately. I tested the machine on som English, probably from here somewhere, and lmg#o so bring it in here and I will try to turn it into senceble english.

    pS almost ALL swedes understands english. It could have been Russian

    "Our bodies work like the autobarn, our minds clog up like a spaghetti junction..."
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 30th, 2012 at 11:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Dear sigurd, I just noticed this thread!

    I would say yes also... Logic itself is essential to the practice of philosophy... but is there a certain type of 'philosophical logic' that can be distinguished from other forms of logic? yes I think so. The understanding and defininig of rational thought processes used in philosophical pursuits?

    Did I employ philosophical logic in the answering of this question? yes I think so, but I have no idea how.

    This question belongs to the subjects of truthism.

    I doubt the list of logics is complete... 'The logic s of the sig' springs to mind.

    The philosophy of logics is the philosophical examination of systems of formal logic and it's appliccations.

    Naive logic sounds something like the suspension of dis belief in order to press on with working out a problem that doesn't really make sense. Yes you are a naive logician by my definition! On the other hand the lable doesn't do you justice Sigurd!

    Yes... let us tackle the philosophy of SigurdV! (inserted remark: If there is one it is an echo of smthng)

    Set it out for us Sig.
    How about the logic of fairy tales? (laughing=)

    I like this quote:"Our bodies work like the autobarn, our minds clog up like a spaghetti junction..."
    If you follow the story of my parents you will notice I skip the part of my birth its in a place called
    "Morgongåva" True! It means morning gift So the area is ok. Im afraid Margoth didnt visit the heaviest
    trafficked ​crosscorner And the stars perhaps were...
    Nah! This aint the place for memories?This is not DiscWorld? And Im not Terry Pratchet.
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 30th, 2012 at 12:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 08:54 AM
  2. Philosophical Beliefs
    By gottspieler in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 9th, 2009, 07:48 AM
  3. Digital Logic Vs. Quantum logic
    By Truth_Table in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
  4. Philosophical Smart Alecs
    By DaBOB in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 09:03 AM
  5. Philosophical Discussion good move
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 29th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •