"An interpretation often (but not always) provides a way to determine the truth values of sentences in a language." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic) Are you saying it is ALWAYS right? >.>
"I never said I was correct. =]" I also never said I was wrong. Just because I never said I was wrong doesn't mean I said I was correct and vise versa. So stop assuming. I think many people on this forum fail to realize that I am neutral on everything. I just have to pick a side to play a role in the forums. By the way... Did you know my thinking style is a mix of a couple of well known philosophers?
Your point is that mathematical and logical constructs can be formed in such a way that they are definable or undefinable, can exist or not exist, and / or that they can be any combination of the above simultaneously. So what? Oh, and good luck with Dywyddyr, maybe I'll cruise back by to pick at the carcass... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah I'm starting to think this isn't a good idea to continue. Oh well. If I am going to die, I'll die laughing. That is, if I decide to continue with this discussion. Finally someone who realizes what I am saying though. That was the whole point with the Liar's Paradox. The point is that some philosophers are discussing things I am discussing here. Did you not know that? Some Philosophers are discussing that truth, fact, absolute truth, and etc may not even exist. I decided to screw around and form logical and mathematical constructs so they "can be formed in such a way that they are definable or undefinable, can exist or not exist, and / or that they can be any combination of the above simultaneously." You see why some Philosophers may actually doubt absolute truth, reality, logic, and etc?
You're STILL missing the point. You haven't answered my question. Oh dear. I ask a question. You post something unrelated. I point out that you haven't answered the question. You continue to waffle and STILL don't answer the question. And then accuse me of assuming. Can you see the slight problem we have here? Thanks for telling us. So far it appears that your "thinking style" is the result of having had at least one more logic lesson than "real life classes". I wonder if any of those well-known philosophers would have answered a direct question.
I think you have failed to realize it works both ways. You use ruthless logic. I will use ruthless logic while opening it's loopholes. I think you have failed to realize it works both ways. I don't know. Are any of them alive to test that theory?
No. But I have realised that you posit something without having the decency to explain what you mean. Which was nothing whatsoever to do with the original premise. Hardly logical. You tell me. You (and so far only you) know who it is you're referring to.
You're still failing to realize what I mean. I have explained what I meant. Time and time again. It's getting quite annoying now. Now your seeing the point. You doing the same thing sir. Actually, I can argue differently on that premise. Especially since teachers know what I am doing with this. Their names have a right to privacy. You want to beg to differ?
You're right. It IS annoying. And you haven't explained. You gave a quote and link on the rule of inference and two in interpretation in logic How does that explain what YOU mean by "logic preference"? And does it relate to your claim about logic relying on perception? And you appear to be assuming**. Oh good. How does the fact your teachers know relate to anyone in this thread? Excuse me? On the one hand you claim they're "well-known philosophers" and NOW you're saying that "their names have a right to privacy*". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * Whatever that is supposed to mean. How does a name have any rights? ** And rapidly becoming far less potentially interesting.
Dear sir, you're being rude. Agree to disagree or I will end this argument by agreeing to disagree about you views.
I see. Because you can't explain what you mean (or are unprepared to do so) I'm being rude. Because you make contradictory statements that I have the temerity to question it's somehow my fault. Got it.
Uh, no I haven't. Yes, I understand you're a hardcore empiricist. The problem is not one of perception, but one of definition (alone). We need not perceive (contingent upon you're missing definition thereof..) to define.
I respect all points of view. Have you forgotten I have said that? "True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us." - Socrates In other words, you are saying you are correct right? Or am I wrong? You have yet to explain what you meant to at least have "me" understand. Is there really anything wrong with that? If you misunderstand me, I misunderstand you. Have you forgotten it works both ways? "The well bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves." - Oscar Wilde Have you forgotten I contradict everything, even what I believe? And yet you still insist you are understanding me? I can control my understanding. I cannot control yours.
Is it really necessary to "bite"? I am able to contradict everything I have said, and you find it offensive even though I can "raise" myself to your level of intelligence? You are completely misunderstanding what some of the terms I have said mean. That, or you are taking them in the "wrong" way. You don't like the quotes? You don't like what I say? Agree to disagree. Deal with it. I am not your mental slave. You don't like me telling you what to do. Don't expect me to like what you do to me if it is something I cannot get away with.