Saltus in demonstrando (leap in explaining).

Definition: A leap in logic, by which a necessary part of an equation is omitted.

I've always had difficulty in distinguishing

1. Isn't true

From

2. I haven't yet found the/a proof

Vide argumentum ad ignorantiam & the divine fallacy (I feel they're relevant somehow).

Whenever I eat a madeleine cake I'm reminded of my over-privileged upbringing in the withered remains of late nineteenth century French aristocracy.

isn't it fair to say our thoughts can't have perfect continuity, and our ability of connecting similar things in a meaningful way is relative? Or can disassociation be a measure of creativity or an extention to logic that other people simply don't understand, but can still be purposeful? — TiredThinker

The experience of disassociation is another name for confusion and unintelligibility. This is only creative if it motivates us to find ways of relating what is incoherent.

I've always had difficulty in distinguishing

1. Isn't true

From

2. I haven't yet found the/a proof — Agent Smith

You willl never find a proof for the pattens of relationship that matter most in our lives, since they are designed not to replicate static facts , but as channels for anticipating and organizing dynamically changing aspects of the world.

As far as disassociation as a disease symptom there is also depersonalization-derealization. If disassociation can only mean confusion can one imagine things seeming more real versus confusing? Ultra real where everything seems super clear, and nobody can deny that person's lucidity?

Maybe disassociation was a poor word since it is psychiatric. Just in general there will always be a closer association between any two things or concepts so it is relative?

There is a discontinuity of thought that gives one a sense of freedom.

I can imagine realms of insanity, where impoverished continuity may result in dysfunctional or non-functional behavior, as in the case of some psychotics. The mind demands continuity between events so as not to writhe into craze.

Some times continuity is relative other times it is mutual. When giving out commands, the communication must be shared, the continuity mutual, or else the event can not happen as desired.

“Please get me a cup of water,” any rational adult knowing English can understand and form a method for putting their thoughts into motion. The command has a continuity to it. “Please leaf the willow tree into sausage,” is obviously a discontinuity, that and nonsense. Both examples give one the distinction.

Here is an article https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/chesterton-hume-contingency-and-causality/ I would suggest reading more on Hume to get a better understanding of the philosophy of continuity. One could also think in comparative terms of chaos theory and methodological science, though I know of no formulated comparison.

You willl never find a proof for the pattens of relationship that matter most in our lives, since they are designed not to replicate static facts , but as channels for anticipating and organizing dynamically changing aspects of the world — Joshs

Gracias for the warning but as they say "never say never ... "

Sorry. I don't understand this thread at all.

Thanks. I will read more hume. Chaos theory more physics or is there a philosophy version I should look for?

Sorry. I don't understand this thread at all. — L'éléphant

Isn't that the gist of the OP, mon ami?

Isn't that the gist of the OP, mon ami? — Agent Smith

Sharp!!

Sharp!! — L'éléphant

You jest of course!

You jest of course! — Agent Smith

Non. C'est vrai.

Il est facile de voir que [...] — Pierre-Simon Laplace

Voir quoi?

:ok:

I posted in bio forum too. I am curious what brain function makes a person convinced the world is less real.

Are you both French? I think I've seen Agent Smith speak it often enough.

As far as I can see, people aren't convinced the world isn't real. Skepticism doesn't work that way - all it does is raise a possibility, an alternative to what we (think we) know and then shows how the two are adiaphora (indistinguishable). That means pragmata (stuff, sensu amplissimo) are anepikrita (undecidable). What follows is aporia (bewilderment) which leads to ataraxia (tranquility).

No, I'm not French, but I wish I was :chin: ; just watched too much Hercule Poirot, that's all.