Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Logik]

English: John is John. Python: John == John True English: Jane is Jane. Python: Jane == Jane True English: John is human. Python: John == Human True English: Jane is human. Python: Jane == Human True English: John is Jane. Python: John == Jane False
LOOK MOM! NO CONTRADICTION!!!

???
Python is not English.
It's a snake.

Now Mr Sophist, do you care to tell me what would happen in your "formal" logic if you had to express these propositions:
A = C (John is Human)
B = C (Jane is Human)
A = B (John is Jane)

Sorry, this is just pure nonsense. "John is human" doesn't mean John = human".
I already explained to you, you mixed up two arguments into one.
This one is valid (provided you defined "=" properly):

A = C
B = C
A = B

This one is not valid:

John is Human
Jane is Human
John is Jane

Quite simple, really.
Check whether you have a brain at all.

So who is the fraud here?

You are.
A brainless fraud.
EB

I know that your animal instinct is to sling poop at those who you think have "done you wrong".
I know cognitive dissonance is a difficult emotion to process, but I am truly appealing to your ability to reason for yourself here.

Examine that which stands before your eyes.
Trust your eyes.

Understand what is happening.

Because I can contradict both the laws of identity and the laws of non-contradiction using Mathematics surely your brain seeks explanation for why what you believe disagrees with what your eyes are seeing.

I will give you an explanation: the "laws" of logic are made up.
The "laws" of logic are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

And if we are going to be making things up - you are better off using constructive mathematics.
It has all of human knowledge encoded in it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

[Logik]

Sorry, this is just pure nonsense. "John is human" doesn't mean John = human".
I already explained to you, you mixed up two arguments into one.
This one is valid (provided you defined "=" properly):

You are accusing me of mixing up arguments and yet... I am CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETING the English word "IS" to correspond to the Python operator "==" and the code produces EXACTLY the assertions any native English speaker would.

So why can't you fucking translate the English word "IS" into a consistent symbol in classical logic?

English: John is John
Python: John == John
Classical logic: John = John

English: John is Human
Python: John == Human
Classical logic: John ∈ Human

English: Jane is Jane
Python: Jane == Jane
Classical Logic: Jane = Jane

English: Jane is Human
Python: Jane == Human
Classical logic: Jane ∈ Human

English; John is Jane
Python: John == Jane
Classical logic: John == Jane

LOOK AT THE FUCKING CODE.

This is the computer ASSERTING facts!

Lines 20, 24, 28, 32 and 36.

https://repl.it/repls/HiddenSwiftTraining

Code: Select all

print(John == John) => True
print(Jane == Jane)  => True
print(John == Human)  => True
print(Jane == Human)  => True
print(John == Jane)  => False

So explain to me how English can be consistently translated into a programming language, but it can't be consistently translated into Classical logic.

Calling "logic" a formal system that doesn't give the same results as human logical reasoning is just a fraud.

Eat your words, sophist

This is what your 'logic' can't do.

A = C
B = C
A != B

Mine can.
https://repl.it/repls/GummyGenerousSource

Code: Select all

A = C => True
A = C => True
A != B => True

[Speakpigeon]

You're seriously confused here.
We're talking about logic, not about the empirical facts about the physical world.
People have known about this distinction since Aristotle and the Stoics. Where have you been?!
And as to facts, you seem to be utterly lost.

I am talking about logic. Are facts not arrived at THROUGH logic?Are facts not ASSERTIONS?

???
You really believe that?
Whoa. You coming from another dimension?
No, as I already told you, facts are "knowledge of actual occurrences". I know the sun is shining not through the use of any formal logic but merely because I look outside and I see that the sun is shining. If there is some logic involved, it's definitely not formal logic and not anything I would be conscious of. Knowledge is like existence. It just happens.
I understand now how much the world must be confusing to you.

If somebody, somewhere and somehow did not assert THAT 'John is human' then why is it a 'fact'?

Good lord! Why have you forsaken us?
Asserting that "John is human" doesn't make it a fact! That's egregiously stupid!
You assert "John is human" whenever you feel like it.
I can assert things like "Trump is the best French president ever"!!! That obviously doesn't make it a fact!
So, basically, you don't actually think at all, right?

I don't know about you but this is how my mind works:
I look at John
I COMPARE John to the CONCEPT of what a "Human" is.
My mind RECOGNIZES that the CONCEPT of "Human" describes John well.
My mind answers 'YES' to the question "Is John huuman?"
Therefore I can say "John is human."

Gobbledegook.
You have absolutely no idea what your mind does.
You're a deluded ignorant.
You''re confusing different levels of description.
We can of course always describe our thoughts in formal terms as you try to do here but that doesn't mean that our mind works using formal logic. All you know is that first you know you're looking at John and that, second, you know you believe John is human. At no point do you have to think about the concept of human in order to feel good asserting that John is human. These things are essentially intuitive, meaning the job is done unconsciously and all you get to know is the result, i.e. the intuition that John is indeed human.
Obviously, there has to be a process that produces our intuitions. However, it's essentially unconscious, so don't come bragging here about what your mind does because most of it you have absolutely no idea just as you have no idea what's the process by which you get to have nice colourful visual representations of the world around you. Without science, we would still be completely ignorant of it.
So, no, you know something is human because first you know there is this something because you're looking at it, and second because you just know you believe this something is human. You just know it without having to even consciously think about it. It's all intuitive. If you had to think about it you would suffer cognitive overload each you'd be in a crowd with hundred of people. In fact, you would be in constant overload just trying to formally deduce that things around you are what they are.

If you "don't have difficulty" in that respect" why can't you fucking ASSERT if John is human?

???
Where did that happened?!
I'm sure I wasn't there.
You're a deadbeat.
EB

[Logik]

I am talking about logic. Are facts not arrived at THROUGH logic?Are facts not ASSERTIONS?

???
You really believe that?
Whoa. You coming from another dimension?
No, as I already told you, facts are "knowledge of actual occurrences". I know the sun is shining not through the use of any formal logic but merely because I look outside and I see that the sun is shining. If there is some logic involved, it's definitely not formal logic and not anything I would be conscious of. Knowledge is like existence. It just happens.
I understand now how much the world must be confusing to you.

What a fucking idiot. I come from the human dimension. Where do you come from?

If "'The sun is shining" is a fact, the SURELY "SpeakPigeon is human" is also a fact!

Are you trying to convince us that it isn't or what?

[Speakpigeon]

English: John is John. Python: John == John True English: Jane is Jane. Python: Jane == Jane True English: John is human. Python: John == Human True English: Jane is human. Python: Jane == Human True English: John is Jane. Python: John == Jane False
LOOK MOM! NO CONTRADICTION!!!

???
Python is not English.
It's a snake.

Now Mr Sophist, do you care to tell me what would happen in your "formal" logic if you had to express these propositions:
A = C (John is Human)
B = C (Jane is Human)
A = B (John is Jane)

Sorry, this is just pure nonsense. "John is human" doesn't mean John = human".
I already explained to you, you mixed up two arguments into one.
This one is valid (provided you defined "=" properly):

A = C
B = C
A = B

This one is not valid:

John is Human
Jane is Human
John is Jane

Quite simple, really.
Check whether you have a brain at all.

So who is the fraud here?

You are.
A brainless fraud.
EB

I know that your animal instinct is to sling poop at those who you think have "done you wrong". I know cognitive dissonance is a difficult emotion to process, but I am truly appealing to your ability to reason for yourself here. Examine that which stands before your eyes. Trust your eyes. Understand what is happening. Because I can contradict both the laws of identity and the laws of non-contradiction using Mathematics surely your brain seeks explanation for why what you believe disagrees with what your eyes are seeing.

Good, this exchange establishes you're unable to argue from facts and logic.
So all that is left to you now is to assert imaginary facts with as much of a straight face as possible.

I will give you an explanation: the "laws" of logic are made up.

Sure. Human beings are made up. What's new?

The "laws" of logic are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

Of dear, oh dear, as if you could prove that.
But you can't.
You can't because by saying logic is socially constructed you've forsaken logic itself, so all you can do now is assert imaginary facts.

And if we are going to be making things up - you are better off using constructive mathematics.
It has all of human knowledge encoded in it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

You link at lot but you can't explain yourself.
I never read your links because I couldn't argue with the website.
If you can't argue your point, then nobody cares.
EB

[Logik]

???
Python is not English.
It's a snake.

Sorry, this is just pure nonsense. "John is human" doesn't mean John = human".
I already explained to you, you mixed up two arguments into one.
This one is valid (provided you defined "=" properly):

This one is not valid:

Quite simple, really.
Check whether you have a brain at all.

You are.
A brainless fraud.
EB

I know that your animal instinct is to sling poop at those who you think have "done you wrong". I know cognitive dissonance is a difficult emotion to process, but I am truly appealing to your ability to reason for yourself here. Examine that which stands before your eyes. Trust your eyes. Understand what is happening. Because I can contradict both the laws of identity and the laws of non-contradiction using Mathematics surely your brain seeks explanation for why what you believe disagrees with what your eyes are seeing.

Good, this exchange establishes you're unable to argue from facts and logic.
So all that is left to you now is to assert imaginary facts with as much of a straight face as possible.

I will give you an explanation: the "laws" of logic are made up.

Sure. Human beings are made up. What's new?

The "laws" of logic are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

Of dear, oh dear, as if you could prove that.
But you can't.
You can't because by saying logic is socially constructed you've forsaken logic itself, so all you can do now is assert imaginary facts.

And if we are going to be making things up - you are better off using constructive mathematics.
It has all of human knowledge encoded in it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

You link at lot but you can't explain yourself.
I never read your links because I couldn't argue with the website.
If you can't argue your point, then nobody cares.
EB

I have thrown living proof at you (FACTS!)
I have thrown reading material at you (THEORY)
I have DEMONSTRATED to you why computation is consistent with physics AND human reasoning!
I have DEMONSTRATED expressions in English that look incredibly awkward in Classical logic, but completely natural in Mathematical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you things that I can do with Mathematical logic that you can't do in classical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the conclusions of Mathematical logic are consistent with the conclusions of a 5 year old speaking English.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the syntax/grammar of intuitionistic/constructive logic can be CONSISTENTLY re-written to resemble English grammar/syntax.

And I have failed to convince you that you are wrong. OK. How high do you want me to jump?

On the other hand you have successfully convinced me that NO amount of evidence can convince you that you are wrong.
Believe what you want to believe. That's how religion works.

I have stated it numerous times, and I will state it again. There is just NO pleasing you.

SpeakPigeon is dogmatic. And that's a factual assertion.

This is such a strange game! It seems the only winning move is to not play...

I am out

[Speakpigeon]

So why can't you fucking translate the English word "IS" into a consistent symbol in classical logic?
English: John is John
Python: John == John
Classical logic: John = John

English: John is Human
Python: John == Human
Classical logic: John ∈ Human

English: Jane is Jane
Python: Jane == Jane
Classical Logic: Jane = Jane

English: Jane is Human
Python: Jane == Human
Classical logic: Jane ∈ Human

English; John is Jane
Python: John == Jane
Classical logic: John == Jane

LOOK AT THE FUCKING CODE.

You're truly a moron.
You're mixing up different arguments and then you wonder like an idiot it doesn't work!
You're mixing up different argument because you're mixing up different formalisations: informal arguments in English and formal arguments in formal logic. That's just plain idiotic.
This one is in English so it's informal. You need a human being to interpret the logic of it. And all humans that are not insane will tell you it's invalid:

John is Human
Jane is Human
John is Jane

This one is mathematical so you can code it directly into a computer. And it's valid provided you define "=" properly:

A = C
B = C
A = B

EB

[Logik]

This one is mathematical so you can code it directly into a computer. And it's valid provided you define "=" properly:

A = C
B = C
A = B

So define "=" properly then! What are you waiting for??????

Define "=" so that the following ENGLISH statements evaluate correctly.

John is human (A = C => True)
Jane is human (B = C => True)
John is Jane (A = B => False)

Is the "law" of transitivity getting in your way or something?

I worked around it in intuionistic logic.
Surely you can do the same in classical logic.

[Speakpigeon]

I am talking about logic. Are facts not arrived at THROUGH logic?Are facts not ASSERTIONS?

???
You really believe that?
Whoa. You coming from another dimension?
No, as I already told you, facts are "knowledge of actual occurrences". I know the sun is shining not through the use of any formal logic but merely because I look outside and I see that the sun is shining. If there is some logic involved, it's definitely not formal logic and not anything I would be conscious of. Knowledge is like existence. It just happens.
I understand now how much the world must be confusing to you.

What a fucking idiot. I come from the human dimension. Where do you come from?
If "'The sun is shining" is a fact, the SURELY "SpeakPigeon is human" is also a fact!
Are you trying to convince us that it isn't or what?

No need to belabour the point, we've already established you can't argue you point.
You've admitted you don't know fact and you've forsaken human logic.
All that remains is for you to assert imaginary facts as loudly as you can!
EB

[Logik]

???
You really believe that?
Whoa. You coming from another dimension?
No, as I already told you, facts are "knowledge of actual occurrences". I know the sun is shining not through the use of any formal logic but merely because I look outside and I see that the sun is shining. If there is some logic involved, it's definitely not formal logic and not anything I would be conscious of. Knowledge is like existence. It just happens.
I understand now how much the world must be confusing to you.

What a fucking idiot. I come from the human dimension. Where do you come from?
If "'The sun is shining" is a fact, the SURELY "SpeakPigeon is human" is also a fact!
Are you trying to convince us that it isn't or what?

No need to belabour the point, we've already established you can't argue you point.
You've admitted you don't know fact and you've forsaken human logic.
All that remains is for you to assert imaginary facts as loudly as you can!
EB

This is a yes/no question.

Are you human?

[Speakpigeon]

I have thrown living proof at you (FACTS!)
I have thrown reading material at you (THEORY)
I have DEMONSTRATED to you why computation is consistent with physics AND human reasoning!
I have DEMONSTRATED expressions in English that look incredibly awkward in Classical logic, but completely natural in Mathematical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you things that I can do with Mathematical logic that you can't do in classical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the conclusions of Mathematical logic are consistent with the conclusions of a 5 year old speaking English.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the syntax/grammar of intuitionistic/constructive logic can be CONSISTENTLY re-written to resemble English grammar/syntax. And I have failed to convince you that you are wrong. OK. How high do you want me to jump? On the other hand you have successfully convinced me that NO amount of evidence can convince you that you are wrong. Believe what you want to believe. That's how religion works. I have stated it numerous times, and I will state it again. There is just NO pleasing you. SpeakPigeon is dogmatic. And that's a factual assertion. This is such a strange game! It seems the only winning move is to not play... I am out

Still more assertion of imaginary facts.
EB

[Logik]

I have thrown living proof at you (FACTS!)
I have thrown reading material at you (THEORY)
I have DEMONSTRATED to you why computation is consistent with physics AND human reasoning!
I have DEMONSTRATED expressions in English that look incredibly awkward in Classical logic, but completely natural in Mathematical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you things that I can do with Mathematical logic that you can't do in classical logic.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the conclusions of Mathematical logic are consistent with the conclusions of a 5 year old speaking English.
I have DEMONSTRATED to you that the syntax/grammar of intuitionistic/constructive logic can be CONSISTENTLY re-written to resemble English grammar/syntax. And I have failed to convince you that you are wrong. OK. How high do you want me to jump? On the other hand you have successfully convinced me that NO amount of evidence can convince you that you are wrong. Believe what you want to believe. That's how religion works. I have stated it numerous times, and I will state it again. There is just NO pleasing you. SpeakPigeon is dogmatic. And that's a factual assertion. This is such a strange game! It seems the only winning move is to not play... I am out

Still more assertion of imaginary facts.
EB

FINE! I concede! "SpeakPigeon is human" is an imaginary fact!!!

You really must be a speaking pigeon then.

I used to believe that pigeons can't speak English but now that I have seen one that can - I am convinced that I was mistaken.

What impresses me even more though is that you are a pigeon that can use a computer. That's so cool!

[Speakpigeon]

FINE! I concede! "SpeakPigeon is human" is an imaginary fact!!! You really must be a speaking pigeon then. I used to believe that pigeons can't speak English but now that I have seen one that can - I am convinced that I was mistaken. What impresses me even more though is that you are a pigeon that can use a computer. That's so cool!

This shows you're running out of plausible imaginary facts so you are now telling us the Moon is made of green cheese.
I guess the little boy is naked as people are watching.
It's OK, you won't die of exposure. Just a bit bruised, your ego.
You're an ignoramus, an attention-seeker, and a fraud.
EB

[Logik]

FINE! I concede! "SpeakPigeon is human" is an imaginary fact!!! You really must be a speaking pigeon then. I used to believe that pigeons can't speak English but now that I have seen one that can - I am convinced that I was mistaken. What impresses me even more though is that you are a pigeon that can use a computer. That's so cool!

This shows you're running out of plausible imaginary facts so you are now telling us the Moon is made of green cheese.
I guess the little boy is naked as people are watching.
It's OK, you won't die of exposure. Just a bit bruised, your ego.
You're an ignoramus, an attention-seeker, and a fraud.
EB

I am no longer talking to this idiot I am just going to make an example of him.

For anybody still reading observe how he has deflected from answering the simple point: "Speakpigeon is human".

Apparently he can't assert the truth-value of a proposition that any 5t year old as well as a computer program I wrote in 2 minutes has no problem asserting. I guess he got caught with his pants down.

He rejects his own humanity and then accuses me that I come from "another dimension"

[Speakpigeon]

So define "=" properly then! What are you waiting for??????
Define "=" so that the following ENGLISH statements evaluate correctly.
John is human (A = C => True)
Jane is human (B = C => True)
John is Jane (A = B => False)
Is the "law" of transitivity getting in your way or something?
I worked around it in intuionistic logic.
Surely you can do the same in classical logic.

You've mixed up two arguments.
The argument with "=" is valid, the argument with "is" is not valid.
What is it you don't understand?
First, the argument with "=" is valid:

A=C;
B=C;
Therefore A=B.

And then the argument with "is" is not valid:

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

What is it you don't understand?
If you want a formal expression of the second argument, here is it:

A∈C;
B∈C;
Therefore, A∈B.

And it is clearly not valid.
What is it you don't understand?
Ah, yes, logic.
EB