I only see politics as a complex ownership. Most of the people who reach powerful positions - such as a ministry - are there for private issues and affairs. — javi2541997

Government jobs: Make yourself rich by any and all means available, legal and illegal. While you're at it ... can you also please build hospitals, schools, roads, etc. :snicker:

Temet nosce (Know thyself)¹ — Oracle of Delphi

Selfs

1. Who you really are [True self/Objective].
2. Who you think you are [False self/Subjective].
3. Who others think you are [False self/Subjective].

Greece — Alkis Piskas

What happened to Greece? It was doing so well - the epicenter of philosophy, culture, art, and so on - and now it's the sick man of Europe. :snicker:

Time to pull up your socks you Greeks! Restore your past glory! Reclaim the title of world leader! Go Greece, go!

Thanks for sharing that, its an intriguing view in the face of instinctual behavior for the good of the species. — Seeker

I don't know what to say except I like spiders. :snicker: Something about them fascinates me to no end. I should've opted for arachnology; oh well, can't turn back time!

A fun fact follows ...

Hisdosus' commentary is the only source (albeit in Latin paraphrase) for Heraclitus' comparison of the soul to a spider and the body to the spider's web (DK 22B 67a) — Wikipedia

The calculus constitutes a formal language. Yep, the language will be consistent if it is not possible to derive any contradictions. It will be complete if we can derive every tautology. — Banno

Ok :grin: You see, that's an explanation that needs an explanation in my pathetic universe. Don't worry, I'll work on the gaps in my knowledge, just not now; I have a lot on my plate.

Ok. I don't have the skillset to engage in a worthwhile discussion on this topic. Will heed your advice (for now).

---

Can you take a look at a statement that appears on Wikipedia regarding natural deduction?

A theory [natural deduction] is said to be consistent if falsehood is not provable (from no assumptions)¹ and is complete if every theorem or its negation is provable using the inference rules of the logic². — Wikipedia

What do 1 and 2 mean exactly? My guesstimates below:

1. Falsehood = Contradiction

2. I have no clue. I thought completeness meant every true statement is provable.

With modern spy satellites its easy peasy to predict war - troop & armor mobilization, a necessity, can be detected months in advance. So, guys & gals, we can stop asking the so-called war experts, they're useless. All you have to do is turn your eye in the sky (if you have one :snicker: ) towards the borders and ... all will be revealed.

I hope Wayfarer (the OP who some say left TPF for good) is watching this thread. Bon voyage mon ami wherever you are and wherever you're headed!

I need feedback. — Banno

:snicker: Well, to me, modal logic is part and parcel of propositional logic (thank goodness the OP is delimited to that; my predicate logic is rusty). Consider the definition of validity: An argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Mind you, my knowledge is limited to natural deduction as found in introductory texts on logic.

Yet natural deduction is as powerful and valid as an axiomatic system. — Banno

I'm afraid I won't be able to further the discussion on that point.

My responses are limited. You'll have to ask the right questions. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

If there's no causal link between events before a time t₀ (the big bang, 13.8 billion years ago) and events after, we could say time began (for us) 13.8 billion years ago. There's a causal gap that would mean even if time existed, it would have no (causal) import for us.

Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it. — unenlightened

I thought I saw something ... maybe not.

...you don't sound convinced... — Banno

:blush:

I don't wanna derail a good thread.

Gracias for the explanation. :up: I just looked up natural deduction on Wikipedia & Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It goes into the details of the system, more than I can take on at the moment. To beginners like myself, natural deduction is a system developed to imitate how people actually reason without compromising on the rigor of more formal systems; hence the natural in the name.

What does it mean to give oneself purpose? — TiredThinker

What is it that you think you're here for? What are you meant to do? What do you want to do with your life?

When you answer these questions by yourself, without looking no further than your own values, you have given yourself a purpose.

Recall that Leibniz called our minds little gods; giving yourself a purpose is (a little) god self-assigning a task.

ok

Nothing to do with possible worlds. — Banno

I thought each truth value assignment specified a possible world. So given a proposition p, p is T is one world and p is F is another, it being impossible for p to be T and F in one world (LNC).

T = True
F = False
LNC = The law of noncontradiction

Argument form: Hypothetical syllogism (abbrev. HS)

1. p $\to$ q
2. q $\to$ r
Ergo
3 p $\to$ r

But natural deduction is more common and more direct, so we might start there. — Banno

Solid copy!

Argument form: Disjunctive syllogism (abbrev. DS)

1. p v q
2. ~p
Ergo
3. q

The law of identify holds between individuals, and as mentioned earlier propositional calculus deals in whole propositions. SO strictly the law of identity is a part of predicate clacualus rather then propositional calculus — Banno

Noted! I don't want to go into the formal aspects of the law of identity and I guess you share that sentiment. Let's leave it at the level of intuitive understanding, that a thing is identical to itself, for the moment.

Notice that it is the negation of (p & ~p), a contradiction?

The contradiction has "F in each row in the truth table. The tautology has T.

So the first way we have of proving a theorem is looking at its truth table. — Banno

The point to truth tables is that given a set of rules on how logical connectives (&, v, ~, $\to$) function (quite like mathematical operations),

a) What will be the final truth value of compound statements like A & C or B v T or E $\to$ I or ~W or more complex compound statements.

b) Evaluate for validity of an argument: Is there a possible world in which, for a given argument form, all the premises are true and the conclusion false? If there is, the argument is invalid and if there's none, the argument is valid.

c) Check for consistency. Is there a possible world in which all the propositions are true? If yes, the set of propositions in question are consistent; if no, inconsistent (we can derive a contradiction via conjunction).

---

To pick up where I left off (for those interested).

Argument form: Modus tollens (abbrev. MT)

1. p $\to$ q
2. ~q
Ergo
3. ~p

My two cents:

The Laws of Thought

1. Identity A = A
2. The law of the excluded middle p v ~p
3. The law of noncontradiction ~(p & ~p)

---

The simplest argument form modus ponens (abbrev. MP)
1. p $\to$ q
2. p
Ergo
3. q

---

Formal fallacies associated with modus ponens

Denying the antecedent/Inverse fallacy
1. p $\to$ q
2. ~p
Ergo
3. ~q

Affirming the consequent/Converse fallacy
1. p $\to$ q
3. q
Ergo
4. p

I even think suffering is inherent to us. It is not a "purpose" but a state of mind or at least an important chain of the human evolution and progress. — javi2541997

Well, that is a possibility that I didn't consider but isn't it true that when people sense a purpose in suffering, it kinda takes the sting out of it? Hence, I believe, the parallel quest to seek meaning in suffering.

I just went in to our local library and offered my technical and other skills as a volunteer, so I'll be doing that in the coming year too — Pantagruel

We're proud of you! Keep it up!

My own interpretation of how Schopenhauer comes to see the will as the 'thing in itself' is through the idea of it being an imminent reality in mind/body consciousness. This is different from seeing as it as being transcendent and separate and, possibly unknowable. — Jack Cummins

I was thinking along similar lines but it turns out Schopenhauer's will has a very specific, technical definition in his philosophy much like arguments in logic. We would be barking up the wrong tree if we were to understand Schopenhauer's will as having something to do with its conventional definitions.

That said, it can't be ruled out that Schopenhauer settled on the word "will" because its conventional meaning has just the right psychological force to appeal to his readers.

Good day.

Purpose has for the most part been associated with (joy &) life. What if someone's purpose is to (suffer &) die à la Jesus of Nazareth?

Girard's idealized pattern of the scapegoat process requires that a mob unanimously attribute guilt to a non-guilty victim. — Nils Loc

Reminds me of the utilitarian-consequentialist conundrum where you hang an innocent man to prevent a riot. :chin:

Corn Mother myth — Nils Loc

I'vr heard of mother spiders who let their spiderlings feed on them. Watch baby spiders eat their mothers alive. Perhaps similar human behavior is a throwback to our humbler arachnid origins or maybe not. Worth pondering upon in my humble opinion.



What do you know, I'm a spider!

But an image is still an image...It is not the thing! — skyblack

Don't be so sure of that mon ami. A buddhist monk once told me advanced practitioners in buddhism can sate their hunger and quench their thirst just by looking at pictures of food and listening to the sound of flowing water. I kid you not.

Scientific success stories (theories) are based on empirical evidence (observational data in re retrodiction & prediction). Remember that it is false to conclude from retrodiction & prediction that scientific theories are true (converse fallacy or fallacy of affirming the consequent). Science is abduction (argument to the best explanation) and explanations either fit/don't it observations. Observations don't prove a scientific theory (circularity is moot).

Where's the circularity you're talking about?

XYZ = H₂O (functionally)

XYZ $\neq$ H₂O (chemically)

That's all there is to Twin Earth.

Xenobiology & Xenochemistry territory.

I must have missed your post. But now that i have seen it, every post after the 3rd one is mine. Goodbye friend. — skyblack

Hi and bye! :smile:

I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again — A Christian Philosophy

Please clarify your position. How exactly is science guilty of a circulus in probando? Be explicit. Danke.

:up:

Merci for the book recommendation.

This is as good a time as any to say this: Mods are not gods, to err is human.

My sister has a pet dog. I think she (the dog) has canine-level mystical experiences. She'll be walking in no particular direction when she'll stop abruptly in her tracks as if she just remembered something but can't quite figure out what that is exactly! Part of these episodes is her eyes, they seem to be asking a question. As suddenly as they happen they end and its back to being a dog - hungry 24×7, shedding fur, chasing birds, pooping, etc.

rich buying co2 credits — Benkei

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

False, given the current paradigms at play, simply means doesn't correspond, doesn't fit, or is useless. Make what you wish out of this simplified account (of truth falsity). :snicker:

number of relations things — Daniel

This issue has been bothering me for the last 11 years and I have not an inch of progress to report. How do we count ... things. Take a stick n cm long. We can arbitrarily, on a whim & fancy, decide to chop it up into as many distinct things as we want: $\frac{n}{m}$ where m is any, any number you wish. If so, the OP's query can't be answered for there would be no definiton of a thing at least with respect to quantity.

That out of the way, we could via trial & error and systematic analysis discover a relationship between (the number of) things and temporal behavior. This would not only mean a deeper understanding of time but also tell us what a thing is for the universe.

Interesting theory. Our forebears probably reasoned thus: to keep our innate bloodthirst in check, it's better to select one person (the sacrificial lamb) and take it all out on him/her, in this way satisfying everyone's violent streak until ... the next sacrifice. The alternative - societal collapse - would've been unacceptable.

Africans left africa in migratory waves over hundreds to thousands of millennia and this primeval African diaspora adapted over hundreds-thousands of generations to environments different from Africa and subject to different evolutionary stressors (perhaps mating with non-African hominid "cousins"). Our mitochondrial DNA does not lie. :fire: — 180 Proof

You da best, mon ami, you da best!

So there were some non-African hominids in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans). My knowledge of human evolution is limited to the out-of-Africa theory, our neanderthal and denisovan cousins which we probably assimilated and/or exterminated. :scream: That's one reason I don't feel "happy to be alive". My family tree is not something I would be proud of, soaked in the blood of so many my ancestors had to kill as it is. :sad: Survival of the fittest nastiest.

I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence. — A Christian Philosophy

Ah! You're taking this to the next level (of skepticism). Setting aside hyperbolic skepticism for the moment, do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately?

Meaning in suffering:

1. Religious, sensu amplo, rejection of the physical to, in the process, get to know one's mind, one's spiritual side. Self-mortification, ascetism, tapas (penance) via :fire: (Agni). Let's not forget Jesus, via dolorsa.

2. Endurance training (soldiers), prepping for worst-case scenarios. Pain threshold can be raised as per military records.

3. Suffer just for the heck of it (free will).

Did caucasians & asians flee Africa or did they just decide to explore and ended up where they are now? A lot rides on the answer to that question.