The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[Atla]

So if you aren't arguing about anything, then how can you correct me?

Because I am correcting your USE of logic? Logic has properties and rules (soundness, completeness, consistency, confluence and many others). You are violating them. I am pointing out the errors and pointing out corrective measures (for you to consider or ignore).

Logic is just a tool. What you are USING logic FOR that's about teleology.

But if you are USING logic incorrectly, you are unlikely to achieve whatever it is you have set out to achieve.

Be it "arguing about metaphysics" or real-world reasoning in general...

You mean I may violate YOUR logic, not the one almost everyone else is using in philosophy.

[TimeSeeker]

You mean I may violate YOUR logic, not the one almost everyone else is using in philosophy.

Yes. The one everyone else is using in philosophy (Aristotelian logic) is demonstrably broken.

Everything you can express in Aristotelian logic can also be expressed in Modal logic, or Temporal logic or Temporal Type Theory.

The reverse is not true. Because Aristotelian logic lacks the necessary semantics to construct modal temporal or typed phenomena!

Backwards compatibility, you see? A more generally applicable tool is better. Like a Swiss army knife!

[Atla]

You mean I may violate YOUR logic, not the one almost everyone else is using in philosophy.

The one everyone else is using in philosophy (Aristotelian logic) is demonstrably broken.

Everything you can express in Aristotelian logic can also be expressed in Modal logic, or Temporal logic or Temporal Type Theory.

The reverse is not true. Because Aristotelian logic lacks the necessary semantics to construct the argument.

You haven't demonstrated that it's broken for philosophy, nor did I agree to use your logic. I find it nonsensical in philosophy.

You haven't shown anything wrong with my comments so far, not even once.

[TimeSeeker]

You haven't demonstrated that it's broken for philosophy, nor did I agree to use your logic. I find it nonsensical in philosophy.

You haven't shown anything wrong with my comments so far, not even once.

Ahhhh, so you are USING logic FOR philosophy? Teleology!!!!

And you accuse me of being an "intellectual fraud"

Can you enlighten me on what the objective goals of philosophy are?
How do I know if I am doing "philosophy" right?

[Atla]

You haven't demonstrated that it's broken for philosophy, nor did I agree to use your logic. I find it nonsensical in philosophy.

You haven't shown anything wrong with my comments so far, not even once.

Ahhhh, so you are USING logic FOR philosophy? Teleology!!!!

And you accuse me of being an "intellectual fraud"

Can you enlighten me on what the objective goals of philosophy are?
How do I know if I am doing "philosophy" right?

How did we go from classical logic to teleology/objective goals?

[TimeSeeker]

How did we go from classical logic to teleology/objective goals?

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

Or is USING classical logic what philosophy IS all about?

[Atla]

How did we go from classical logic to teleology/objective goals?

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

[TimeSeeker]

How did we go from classical logic to teleology/objective goals?

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

OK. So you are USING classical logic FOR philosophy.

Then philosophy is your teleology. Your end goal.

[Atla]

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

OK. So you are USING classical logic FOR philosophy.

Then philosophy is your teleology. Your end goal.

No it's not. There is no end goal.

[TimeSeeker]

For philosophy.

OK. So you are USING classical logic FOR philosophy.

Then philosophy is your teleology. Your end goal.

No it's not. There is no end goal.

You do understand the context in which the word "FOR" is used in the English language, right? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for

a—used as a function word to indicate purpose
b —used as a function word to indicate an intended goal
c —used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity

By USING the word "FOR" you are IMPLYING that "philosophy" IS the purpose e.g end goal.

Why are you using classical logic FOR philosophy? Would it not make FOR better philosophising if a more modern logic was to be used?
Classical logic is 3000 years old...

You are so lost in your own mental muddle that you can't recognise that "philosophy" is an activity. And logic is its instrument.

Unless you were meaning to say "USING classical logic FOR lip service WITHOUT an end goal whatsoever IS philosophy"?

And IF philosophy has no end-goal or rules then how did you determine that my logic "doesn't work" ?

[Atla]

OK. So you are USING classical logic FOR philosophy.

Then philosophy is your teleology. Your end goal.

No it's not. There is no end goal.

You do understand the context in which the word "FOR" is used in the English language, right? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for

a—used as a function word to indicate purpose
b —used as a function word to indicate an intended goal
c —used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity

By USING the word "FOR" you are IMPLYING that "philosophy" IS the purpose e.g end goal.

Why are you using classical logic FOR philosophy? Would it not make FOR better philosophising if a better logic was to be used?
You are so lost in your own muddle that you can't recognise that "philosophy" is an activity. And logic is its instrument.

Unless you were meaning to say "USING classical logic FOR lip service WITHOUT an end goal whatsoever IS philosophy"?

And IF philosophy has no end-goal or rules then how did you determine that my logic "doesn't work" ?

Everyone except you already knows that "philosophy" isn't an end goal in itself.
You show a profound inability to properly process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Everyone except you already knows that "philosophy" isn't an end goal in itself.
You show a profound inability to properly process context.

Everybody but you knows that "philosophy" isn't a THING! It's a colloquial phrase for a general activity that has no objective rules.

And so if philosophy is not a goal and it has no goal then it has no context!

RULES CREATE CONTEXT.

You show profound inability to recognize that without rules (criteria, AUTHORITY!) for what is and isn't "philosophy" then anything goes!

What do I USE philosophy for? Practicing rhetoric.

[Atla]

Everyone except you already knows that "philosophy" isn't an end goal in itself.
You show a profound inability to properly process context.

Everybody but you knows that "philosophy" isn't a THING! It's a colloquial phrase for a general activity that has no objective rules.

And so if philosophy is not a goal and it has no goal then it has no context!

RULES CREATE CONTEXT.

You show profound inability to recognize that without rules (criteria) for what is and isn't "philosophy" then anything goes!

What do I USE philosophy for? Practicing rhetoric.

I never claimed in any way that philosophy is a "thing". You show an inability to properly process context.
Your other accusations are also completely random and nonsensical.

[TimeSeeker]

Everyone except you already knows that "philosophy" isn't an end goal in itself.
You show a profound inability to properly process context.

Everybody but you knows that "philosophy" isn't a THING! It's a colloquial phrase for a general activity that has no objective rules.

And so if philosophy is not a goal and it has no goal then it has no context!

RULES CREATE CONTEXT.

You show profound inability to recognize that without rules (criteria) for what is and isn't "philosophy" then anything goes!

What do I USE philosophy for? Practicing rhetoric.

I never claimed in any way that philosophy is a "thing". You show an inability to properly process context.
Your other accusations are also completely random and nonsensical.

SO you are using classical logic for NO thing?

You are USING classical logic. Are you not? What re you USING classical logic for?

For philosophy.

Naturally. You lack the knowledge to make sense of them.

It's ok. Maybe one day you'll be less dumb.

[Atla]

Everybody but you knows that "philosophy" isn't a THING! It's a colloquial phrase for a general activity that has no objective rules.

And so if philosophy is not a goal and it has no goal then it has no context!

RULES CREATE CONTEXT.

You show profound inability to recognize that without rules (criteria) for what is and isn't "philosophy" then anything goes!

What do I USE philosophy for? Practicing rhetoric.

I never claimed in any way that philosophy is a "thing". You show an inability to properly process context.
Your other accusations are also completely random and nonsensical.

Naturally. You lack the knowledge to make sense of them.

It's ok. Maybe one day you'll be less dumb.

No, you just state some obvious things, thinking I don't know them, while not actually understanding them yourself.
And no, context is not only created by rules - that claim shows your inability to properly process context.