"Project Logic" #3

[wleg]

“Project Logic” #3

Project Logic is changing the way it attempts to develop philosophical knowledge on a philosophy forum and this is the reason for starting the Project Logic #3 thread. The Project has had no success at buying propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge or buying questions whose answers enhance philosophical knowledge and now The Project will attempt to utilize a computer to generate arguments that result in propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge. To test the validity of the arguments, money will be paid to anyone who can construct an argument that refutes the computers’ argument. Anyone who posts an opinion doubting the existence of this computer threatens the possibility of payments to those who can refute the computers argument, so be smart. The computers name is Socrates (System Of Conceptual Relationships And The End of Senselessness). Socrates has been programmed to recognize the concepts identified in a question and construct an argument that establishes the relationship the concepts have to the existence of each other.

The first question is; “How does knowledge make sense?”

Socrates answers: The question identifies the concept knowledge and the concept sense and asks; How does the existence of knowledge relate to the existence of sense?

Socrates’ argument: If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing or condition, else every thing and condition that exist would be the same and only existing thing or condition. Thus it follows; It is possible to have knowledge that makes sense when we remember which attributes relate to the existence of specific things and conditions. And it follows, knowledge does not make sense when the attributes we remember are not the attributes that relate to the existence of specific things and conditions.

Socrates’ resulting propositional sentence that enhances philosophical knowledge: Knowledge makes sense when the attributes we remember are the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

The Project will pay one hundred dollars ($100) to the first person who can refute the argument supporting the propositional sentence; Knowledge makes sense when the attributes we remember are the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

A rebuttal will be considered successful if it is an argument that destroys the logic of Socrates' argument.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

The appeal of Philosophy is a testament to the eloquence of excellent vocabulary to create the mystery of confusion and contradiction. For too long, doing Philosophy has been the hopeless effort to decipher the writings of philosophers who have not understood how words make sense. The time for Philosophy to understand how knowledge is constructed to understand the process of realistic thinking is now, as evidence the mounting serious problems caused by mankind’s irrationally thinking. The Project will pay one hundred dollars to the first person to suggest a purpose for Philosophy more important than teaching mankind the process of realistic thinking.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

Project Logic Schedule of Payments:

1- $10.00 for each propositional sentence supported by logical argument which enhances philosophical knowledge.

2- $5.00 for each question whose answer supported by logical argument enhances philosophical knowledge.

3- $100.00 for ten propositional sentences written by philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries that are supported by logical argument.

4- $1,000.00 dollars to the first person to suggest a purpose for Philosophy more important than teaching mankind the process of realistic thinking. Must be supported by logical argument.

5- $10.00 for the best suggestions for #5-#10 as judged by The Project.

This payment schedule supersedes any other offers of payment and is prone to change as the need arises.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[The Voice of Time]

spam

[wleg]

OK, The Project will pay you at the price of $4.23 per 12oz can, equal to 236 cans if you are the first person to suggest a purpose for Philosophy more important than teaching mankind the process of realistic thinking. It doesn't matter to The Project what is pays with, sardines, pizza, fish and chips you name it. The Project is willing to pay intelligent people for the product of their thinking. You want to be paid in spam, no problem, but when can we expect the product of intelligent thinking?

[Ginkgo]

“Project Logic” #3

Project Logic is changing the way it attempts to develop philosophical knowledge on a philosophy forum and this is the reason for starting the Project Logic #3 thread. The Project has had no success at buying propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge or buying questions whose answers enhance philosophical knowledge and now The Project will attempt to utilize a computer to generate arguments that result in propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge. To test the validity of the arguments, money will be paid to anyone who can construct an argument that refutes the computers’ argument. Anyone who posts an opinion doubting the existence of this computer threatens the possibility of payments to those who can refute the computers argument, so be smart. The computers name is Socrates (System Of Conceptual Relationships And The End of Senselessness). Socrates has been programmed to recognize the concepts identified in a question and construct an argument that establishes the relationship the concepts have to the existence of each other.

The first question is; “How does knowledge make sense?”

Socrates answers: The question identifies the concept knowledge and the concept sense and asks; How does the existence of knowledge relate to the existence of sense?

Socrates’ argument: If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing or condition, else every thing and condition that exist would be the same and only existing thing or condition. Thus it follows; It is possible to have knowledge that makes sense when we remember which attributes relate to the existence of specific things and conditions. And it follows, knowledge does not make sense when the attributes we remember are not the attributes that relate to the existence of specific things and conditions.

Socrates’ resulting propositional sentence that enhances philosophical knowledge: Knowledge makes sense when the attributes we remember are the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

The Project will pay one hundred dollars ($100) to the first person who can refute the argument supporting the propositional sentence; Knowledge makes sense when the attributes we remember are the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

A rebuttal will be considered successful if it is an argument that destroys the logic of Socrates' argument.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

I think Socrates is making the classical analytic/synthetic distinction.

In the first part of his statement we can see that it is possible to have propositions of the type, All A's are A's, All B's are B's, All C's are C's. He then provides us with a synthetic distinction of the type. "Some A's are C's, some A's are B's, some C's are B's. For Socrates the only type of know that makes sense is the synthetic type.

For example, All green apples are green can be seen as a class of analytical propositions where as All green apples are tasty is a synthetic distinction.

Thus Socrates concludes:

"It is possible to have knowledge that makes sense when we remember what attributes relate to the existence of specific things and conditions. And it follows knowledge does not make sense when the attributes we remember are not the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

In other words, Socrates is denying the analytic as a form of knowledge. There being no analytic/synthetic distinction is not tenable.
The synthetic only makes sense because there is an analytic to compare it to. And the analytic only makes sense because there is a synthetic to compare it to.


P.S.

Wayne, is there a prize for the worst argument? If so is I'll put in for that as well.


Ginkgo

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

We can know a specific apple that has the attribute color of green is not a Red Delicious when we can remember the Red Delicious has the attribute color of red. And we can know an apple is a Granny Smith if we can remember it has the attribute color of green and remember the attribute taste being sour. Knowledge is the mental state of remembering which attributes relate to the existence of which things and conditions.

Philosophers thought knowledge was the product of a particular form of syntax. Syntax only illustrates the mental ability to or not to distinguishing one thing from another by remembering or confusing which attributes relate to the existence of things. A thing exists as itself, unrelated to syntax (concepts exempted), because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing. Philosophers never understood this and invented unnecessary terminology in an attempt to explain what they could not understand. Analytic/synthetic terminology is an example of philosophers not understanding the nature of existence is imperative to understanding how knowledge is constructed.

I believe your argument might qualify, if there were payment for the worst argument. Maybe I should consider that as a possible useful technique to get The Projects' point across.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Syntax only illustrates the mental ability to or not to distinguishing one thing from another by remembering or confusing which attributes relate to the existence of things. A thing exists as itself, unrelated to syntax (concepts exempted), because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing.

Can you give me an example of a thing in itself that has an attribute that is not an attribute of something else?

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

Many existing things have similar attributes but there are no two things that have all the same attributes. Two ball bearing of the same size appear to our senses to have the exact same attributes of size, shape, color, surface est. but they are not both manufactured from the same steel. The quantity of steel that is one is not the same steel that is the other. Thus, the knowledge that they are different is knowing that one is not made from the same steel that is the other. Two ball bearing have attributes so similar we can not tell them apart using our physical senses but we know they are different from each other because the amount of steel used to manufacturer one is not enough steel to manufacturer both. The point is this, knowledge of any thing is a construct of recognizing the attributes that relate to the existence of that thing. That's all we have to know to understand the nature of knowledge itself, and knowledge of knowledge itself is the result of understanding the nature of the existence of things.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

Many existing things have similar attributes but there are no two things that have all the same attributes. Two ball bearing of the same size appear to our senses to have the exact same attributes of size, shape, color, surface est. but they are not both manufactured from the same steel. The quantity of steel that is one is not the same steel that is the other. Thus, the knowledge that they are different is knowing that one is not made from the same steel that is the other. Two ball bearing have attributes so similar we can not tell them apart using our physical senses but we know they are different from each other because the amount of steel used to manufacturer one is not enough steel to manufacturer both. The point is this, knowledge of any thing is a construct of recognizing the attributes that relate to the existence of that thing. That's all we have to know to understand the nature of knowledge itself, and knowledge of knowledge itself is the result of understanding the nature of the existence of things.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

The 'thing in itself' seems to be an exercise in futility. The fact that there are two existing ball bearings with similar attributes is all we really need to know. Why do we need to introduce a higher reality when we come to explaining two of them?

I think this still goes back to my original post. The nature of knowledge itself, and knowledge of knowledge itself - when used in this way is expressing an analytical relationship.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

Let me try explaining again, I usually get better after the 3rd or 4th attempt.

You ask: "Can you give me an example of a thing in itself that has an attribute that is not an attribute of something else?"

Answer: Every thing that exist has at least one attribute that is not an attribute of something else.

I used ball bearings as an example because the two balls have attributes so similar to each other, should have used snowflakes. But the important point is this: The existence of a thing is not related in any way to syntax. It is the expression of our knowledge of the existence of a thing that is related to syntax. We use language to express, in syntax, our knowledge of a thing by identifying the thing and one or more attributes we recognize, or think we recognize, that relate to its' (the subject of the syntax) existence.

Why philosophers never understood this simple logic, I guess we will never know. But the result of their not understanding is the complex terminology, isms, confusion and contradiction caused by their writings.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Impenitent]

the Form is extralinguistic...

god by another name...

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

Wayne, are you saying that the mind is able to grasp the essential attribute of a thing?


Ginkgo

[Felasco]

I may not be on track to the purpose of this thread yet, so please challenge or correct my first attempt.

If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing or condition, else every thing and condition that exist would be the same and only existing thing or condition.

I would argue that the apparent dividing line between one thing and another is an illusion created by the divisive nature of human thought.

As example, if we were to put on pink tinted sunglasses, all of reality would appear to be colored some version of pink.

We are observing reality through the lens of thought. Because thought is inherently divisive by nature, we see division everywhere we look, just as we saw pinkness everywhere in the example above.

The question above should clarify whether it is examining our mental experience of reality, or reality itself. As example...

Within our mental experience, it is legitimate to define the concept "tree" as being that which is contained within the boundary of the tree bark. This is a useful conceptualization with many practical benefits in our day to day lives.

However, in the real world, it's not possible to draw a boundary between "tree" and "not tree". As example, the actual atomic substance of the tree was created in super nova explosions many light years away from any tree.

In the real world, the tree is not separate from sun, soil, water, insects etc. In the real world, the tree is not a separate thing, but rather part of a larger system, which extends to include all of reality. The tree is only a separate thing in the mind of the observer.

Did I win a free trip to Las Vegas???

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

Ginkgo: Wayne, are you saying that the mind is able to grasp the essential attribute of a thing?

Wayne: Yes, memory gives us the ability to understand the existence of a thing (grasp the essential attribute of a thing) by remembering the attributes that relate to the state of a things existence. And since this process of distinguishing one thing from another is the same process no matter what thing, this explains the nature of existence, the nature of knowledge, the process of constructing knowledge, and the process of realistic thinking.

Wayne Leggette Sr.