# Thread: If I can imagine it, it's logically possible?

1. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

I told you I can argue using the crap Mathematical Logic definition. No problem.

Really crap.

Originally Posted by George S
The obvious conclusion using the only definition in this thread is that any valid logical argument yields logical possibility. This is so since logical validity possibility is "the logical consequence of another [proposition, true or false], based on the axioms of a given system of logic."
Well, it depends. If the argument is valid, yes. But if it is only valid in the sense used in Mathematical Logic then not necessarily. Still, we may not need to go there. So, do go on.

Originally Posted by George S
Imagine a race of beings — call them ‘Aliens’ — that is very different from any life-form that exists anywhere in the universe; different enough, in fact, that no actually existing thing could have been an Alien, any more than a given gorilla could have been a fruitfly.
I can imagine those Aliens.
No, you can't. The specification made sure of that.

Originally Posted by George S
Are they logically possible?
Using the above definition, yes.
That's something you would have prove. Can you do that? You can ask for assistance if need be.

Originally Posted by George S
Using your definition, yes or no?
Me, I can't imagine these Aliens at all. I can imagine something that looks not human and not like any animal I know of but I can't imagine that particular kind of Alien, at all. And, you can't either. Which does exemplify to the perfection the problem that people can well claim they can imagine X even though they can't.
EB
At long last we the true EB, 'crap math logic'. Trying to substitute crap philosophy for objective rigorous logic.

2. Originally Posted by steve_bank
At long last we the true EB, 'crap math logic'. Trying to substitute crap philosophy for objective rigorous logic.
As long as you can't argue shit.
EB

3. Short summary: "If we define the word "imagine" in such a way that only possible things can be imagined, than only possible things can be imagined"

Is that what you're saying? Or rather, how's that not what you're saying?

4. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by steve_bank
At long last we the true EB, 'crap math logic'. Trying to substitute crap philosophy for objective rigorous logic.
As long as you can't argue shit.
EB
I can argue shit quite well. It has consistency, color variations indicative of medical conditions, smell.
The stage of your shit indicates the state of your bowels. Knowledge of shit is quite important. Doctors specialize in it.

So, what is your point about arguing shit?

Eventual the façade comes off and the true person comes through.

5. Originally Posted by steve_bank
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by steve_bank
At long last we the true EB, 'crap math logic'. Trying to substitute crap philosophy for objective rigorous logic.
As long as you can't argue shit.
EB
I can argue shit quite well. It has consistency, color variations indicative of medical conditions, smell.
The stage of your shit indicates the state of your bowels. Knowledge of shit is quite important. Doctors specialize in it.
So, what is your point about arguing shit?
Eventual the façade comes off and the true person comes through.
If you can do it, just do it.

For now, I can't see nothing.

And I don't remember you ever posting any cogent argument.

So, please, surprise me.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jokodo
Short summary: "If we define the word "imagine" in such a way that only possible things can be imagined, than only possible things can be imagined"

Is that what you're saying? Or rather, how's that not what you're saying?
Please quote me where I redefine "imagine".
EB

6. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by steve_bank
I can argue shit quite well. It has consistency, color variations indicative of medical conditions, smell.
The stage of your shit indicates the state of your bowels. Knowledge of shit is quite important. Doctors specialize in it.
So, what is your point about arguing shit?
Eventual the façade comes off and the true person comes through.
If you can do it, just do it.

For now, I can't see nothing.

And I don't remember you ever posting any cogent argument.

So, please, surprise me.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jokodo
Short summary: "If we define the word "imagine" in such a way that only possible things can be imagined, than only possible things can be imagined"

Is that what you're saying? Or rather, how's that not what you're saying?
Please quote me where I redefine "imagine".
EB
Post #3?

7. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by steve_bank
I can argue shit quite well. It has consistency, color variations indicative of medical conditions, smell.
The stage of your shit indicates the state of your bowels. Knowledge of shit is quite important. Doctors specialize in it.
So, what is your point about arguing shit?
Eventual the façade comes off and the true person comes through.
If you can do it, just do it.

For now, I can't see nothing.

And I don't remember you ever posting any cogent argument.

So, please, surprise me.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jokodo
Short summary: "If we define the word "imagine" in such a way that only possible things can be imagined, than only possible things can be imagined"

Is that what you're saying? Or rather, how's that not what you're saying?
Please quote me where I redefine "imagine".
EB

Well, you said I can't argue shit which I took to mean I know nothing about shit.

If you used the proper form of the colloquialism you would have said 'You can't argue for shit' which would mean I know nothing about making arguments.

Saying I can't argue baseball and saying I can't argue baseball for shit are two different meanings.

'For now, I can't see nothing'. What are you saying here, if there is nothing to see than by definition there is nothing that can be seen? It is impossible to see nothing? Or did you mean to say you can not see anything? Does nothing exist? I am realy confused about your statement.

The sunforum is about epistemology. I am having trouble figuring out exactly what you mean.

8. Originally Posted by Jokodo
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by Jokodo
Short summary: "If we define the word "imagine" in such a way that only possible things can be imagined, than only possible things can be imagined"
Please quote me where I redefine "imagine".
EB
Post #3?
Here it is, post No. 3...
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
I should have defined my terminology:

Imagine
1. To form a mental picture or image of: imagined a better life abroad.
I always forgot most people are very nearly illiterate.
That definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.

You don't read dictionaries?

So, I have to ask my question again: Please quote me where I redefine "imagine".

Clue: redefine.

I always forgot most people are very nearly illiterate.
EB

9. Originally Posted by steve_bank
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by steve_bank
I can argue shit quite well. It has consistency, color variations indicative of medical conditions, smell.
The stage of your shit indicates the state of your bowels. Knowledge of shit is quite important. Doctors specialize in it.
So, what is your point about arguing shit?
Eventual the façade comes off and the true person comes through.
If you can do it, just do it.
Well, you said I can't argue shit which I took to mean I know nothing about shit.

If you used the proper form of the colloquialism you would have said 'You can't argue for shit' which would mean I know nothing about making arguments.

Saying I can't argue baseball and saying I can't argue baseball for shit are two different meanings.
Learn you're own language, then...

Here a few quotes...
Jan 20, 2019 - I'm not about to argue shit I'm not well educated about ...
Jul 8, 2017 - Maybe you're the one who shouldn't try to argue shit because you have no idea what you're talking of.
(?) - Of course there are certain faculties which study and discuss and argue shit like that, but none of the smarty pants people in them ever agree on anything, and ...
Jan 7, 2010 - ... and Wednesday evening arguing about which NBA games equaled which Houston rap albums with a guy that we regularly argue shit with.
I think "colloquial" is the right word.

Anyway, that was indeed you trying to argue shit.
EB

10. Originally Posted by steve_bank
'For now, I can't see nothing'. What are you saying here, if there is nothing to see than by definition there is nothing that can be seen? It is impossible to see nothing? Or did you mean to say you can not see anything? Does nothing exist? I am realy confused about your statement.

The sunforum is about epistemology. I am having trouble figuring out exactly what you mean.
Take your time. Nobody will be waiting that you understand.
EB

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•