People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

And all of those operations are operations of the mind, therefore bounded by the rules of the mind, which we may call laws of thought. — Lionino

You just completely ignore the point, that I've made twice, now a third time:

In such mental states, people often break the laws of thought.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm happy to read any definition you'd restate.

The refuted person may not be disposed to accept that he's been refuted. But it doesn't follow that if a person points out that he's not been refuted (and gives clear argument about that), then that person is doing that because he doesn't want to admit to having been refuted.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I should list "prerequisites" for talking about logic.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind — Lionino

And a fact about minds is that they are often irrational.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Actually, easier just to list a three book course, which I've done several times in this forum.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

.

I thought they were two different definitions. But the second includes additional assertions beyond what I would have thought is a definition. Also, I don't know what 'instead' refers to.

A law of thought is necessary for the mind no matter what it is doing, ironising, dreaming, thinking, or whatever. All of these have subjacent operations that are necessary to them. — Lionino

Whatever is "subjacent", in those mentioned mental states, the laws of thought are broken in the sense of irrational thinking, believing or imagining. If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought? If one dreams that one's great-grandfather is both alive and dead at the same time, one is not breaking the laws of thought?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'll try to combine your clauses into a defintion:

Laws of thought are facts about your mind such that those facts are necessary for the operation of the mind.

I don't know if that's what you mean, but it's my best guess.

Or maybe just say:

Laws of thought are the necessary mental conditions for the operation of the mind.

From that definition, it follows that they can't be broken.

/

So, when a person is utterly irrational, they are still obeying the laws of thought on account of the fact that there are mental conditions necessary for the operation of their mind?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I didn't mention you skills. I mentioned your knowledge.

And you don't have to feel they that my view is needed nor do you have to request it for me to state it.

Meanwhile, you lashed out at another with your characterization of his knowledge of language. Same applies to you in your knowledge of logic. You've made hundreds and hundreds of posts about logic that are a dead end as your gravamen can be neatly summarized in a couple of sentences (as I did for you) without the pointless variations all on the same pointless theme.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I don't require your courtesy. And I don't require you not to post so that you don't wear out my patience as you do. Anyway, in general, many people in this forum will be discourteous quite soon after they are disagreed with.

[EDIT: "courtesy" from a guy who makes a ridiculous argument against the common courtesy of noting that emphases were added to a quote.]

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You can post or not post as you please. And I'll do the same.

I don't pretend to be a bully and I'm not one. And "senile" is to guffaw.

Meanwhile, no matter how you regard me as "coming off", I don't manufacture perceptions about you in that way. No matter how you "come off" to me, I regard the substance of your posts, good or bad, on their own terms, not personally.

If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought?
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't think any such experiences are possible. — Lionino

Of course they're possible. Whether in absurdist day dreaming, insanity, dreaming or in mystic state, one can have all kinds of irrational thoughts and dispositions. Even in everyday experience, people often drift to sleep with disconnected nonsensical ideas and irrationality.

But, if it is the case that it is possible, definitionally there are no laws of thought that preclude from that happening, because it happened, therefore oen is not breaking laws of thought. — Lionino

Yes, and therefore "laws of thought" pretty much reduces to simply "conditions necessary for mentation". If whatever one thinks, no matter how irrational, is not breaking the laws of thought, then the notion of 'laws of thought' is so general that it is hardly worth mentioning. That suggests putting some more meat on the bones of your definition.

if by irrational you mean things of the sort of believing the colour green is sweet and that the moon is made of cheese. — Lionino

Synesthesia does occur. And people have all kinds of false beliefs not derived by good inferences. But beyond those, people also have even more profoundly alternative states.

coming off as senile. — Lionino

"senile" is to guffaw. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I should not have honored that garbage even by laughing at it.

"senile" is juvenile. Worse, it's pernicious. One would think that such crude ageism wouldn't get into public past the lips of a putatively aware poster. People have mental difficulties for many different reasons. It's not a matter of age, but of the difficulties no matter their cause. Meanwhile, bigoted ridicule of people for their age is obnoxious and disgusting. Also pretty bad is to compound that bigotry by making it a term of general insult against targets whose age is not even known and not relevant no matter what it is.

Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:smirk: