View Poll Results: In your personal opinion, do you feel that "If I am immortal, then I will soon die" is val

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is valid

    0 0%
  • No, it is not valid

    6 60.00%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The question doesn't make sense.

    4 40.00%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 92

Thread: If I am immortal, then I will soon die

  1. Top | #31
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,317
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,979
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    If something is proven, it is taken to be true.
    Sure, but it is not because we routinely believe other people have a mind that other people a have mind.

    We are logical being and logic in itself doesn't prove anything true. What it does is prove that IF premises are true, then the conclusion is true. And how do we know that the premises are true? All we can do is make up another set of premises to prove the first ones. And we thereby go into infinite regress. This is why we don't know the material world. We can only believe on the basis of the premises we happen to believe, i.e. our perception. This is the same in mathematics. People keep saying I know this, I know that, of course they will, if they didn't they wouldn't get a job or a flirt or the bowl of beans. We are good pretenders and we all do it.
    EB

  2. Top | #32
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,317
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,979
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    You need to read the Wiki piece again. There are two explicit declarations that the theorem is true. It's for you to figure out why.
    So suddenly Wiki is the truth sayer? LOL.

    I didn't provide the link to support what I say. I know I am rather isolated being rational and rigorous. These dudes are mostly PhD's repeating again and again what they have learnt at school. Nothing to impress me.

    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Definition of faculty

    1: ABILITY, POWER: such as
    a: innate or acquired ability to act or doman … how infinite in faculty— William Shakespeare
    b: an inherent capability, power, or function the faculty of hearing
    c: any of the powers of the mind (such as will, reason, or instinct) formerly held by psychologists to form a basis for the explanation of all mental phenomena
    d: natural aptitude


    has a faculty for saying the right things
    What can I say. I agree one has the ability to acquire the knack for often saying the right things which I agree is what might be the situation with intuition. Not the same as faculty - suffers from formerly fate - at all and not inherent at all. The other bolded terms are not demonstrated in any measured way. Whereas hearing had been verified as being a faculty. So failing to hitch ones star to any definition that holds water Speakpigeon​'s argument for intuition dies of thirst.
    LOL. So you think memory is not a faculty humans have?

    Memory is the faculty of the brain by which data or information is encoded, stored, and retrieved when needed.

    Intuition, same.

    Memory and intuition are senses of perception.

    Memory is perception of the part of our brain where the data which is the integration of past perception is stored. You don't remember anything? No wonder.

    Intuition is our perception of the part of our brain where the logic of our experience has been integrated by our brain. Works like hellfire. We all do it. You should try it.

    And I couldn't care less what you think has been verified or measured by scientists.
    EB

  3. Top | #33
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,080
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,469
    Rep Power
    61
    Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.

    (By the way, my post up until this parenthetical is an example of an argument, and a valid one.)

  4. Top | #34
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,877
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    59,170
    Rep Power
    89
    Depends what is meant by the vague and ill-defined terms "immortal" and "soon".

    If they're a Highlander immortal and the Kurgan is chasing them down, then it's a valid and logical statement, since the fact of their immortality is the thing which is about to lead to their imminent death.

    If they're talking about "soon" as compared to the potential infinite amount of time which they expect to live, then the heat death of the universe in a few trillion years means the date they're going to die is just around the corner, relatively speaking.

  5. Top | #35
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,317
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,979
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.
    Well, you are wrong.

    Still, for the sake of argument, please justify your claim here. Or is it just something you believe?

    This is actually an interesting point, and I am not sure that the logicians here even understand it. So, perhaps, if one could explain, that would be interesting for us all.
    EB

  6. Top | #36
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,080
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,469
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.
    Well, you are wrong.

    Still, for the sake of argument, please justify your claim here. Or is it just something you believe?

    This is actually an interesting point, and I am not sure that the logicians here even understand it. So, perhaps, if one could explain, that would be interesting for us all.
    EB
    I'm just using the standard definition of validity: https://www.britannica.com/topic/validity

    Validity, In logic, the property of an argument consisting in the fact that the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
    Are you saying that the statement in the OP is intended to be an argument, rather than just a conditional? If so, what are the premises, what is the conclusion, and what logical rule justifies the conclusion given the premises?

  7. Top | #37
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,970
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    31,183
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post


    LOL. So you think memory is not a faculty humans have?

    Memory is the faculty of the brain by which data or information is encoded, stored, and retrieved when needed.

    Intuition, same.
    Wow. I spell it out and you find a new item to introduce. I chose to use the example in the definition which was the faculty of audition. We can argue to what extent perception, usually a level of processing making sense of information produced by sense faculties. I will agree that memory is a faculty that can provide objective material measures. But I specifically provided three articles explaining intuition and introspection are not measurable nor brain system associated. Why do you keep attaching your unverified 'faculty' by way of associating it with an actual faculty. Intuition is not a faculty because it is mentioned in the same sentence as audition or memory which are faculties even by uninformed admission. Saying is no longer adequate to qualify something you think people do as a faculty.

    Again saying intuition is our perception of the part , unidentified, where logic has been integrated, unverified. Something works like hell fire by you fall far short of describing or even modelling it. I understand workload which degrades with task complexity and time on task and improves when chunking elements to be processed are used in everybody. But I don't understand intuition which is seen by some but never found measureable by anyone and is only accessible by introspection.

    Don't play with your philosophical illusionary things. Try to make use of experimental philosophy by building a language that actually can yield results. IMHO that failure looks like why several attempts to begin an experimental philosophy has thus far failed every time it has been initiated.

    Look. In audition we gave up on finding processes across languages that produced the possibility of machine language. Presently we settle for a few simple start stop rules and a huge barge of reference to produce multiple languages via one machine. So much for Chomsky. Yeah, he pisses me off. Just as Gould did in evolutionary theory.

  8. Top | #38
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,046
    Rep Power
    17
    As usual he dances around an obvious intellectual failure and starts with ad homs to avoid acknowledging the failure.

    As Spock would say 'Most illogical, but the humans are emotional not logical'.

  9. Top | #39
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,240
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,146
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    If something is proven, it is taken to be true.
    Sure, but it is not because we routinely believe other people have a mind that other people a have mind.

    We are logical being and logic in itself doesn't prove anything true. What it does is prove that IF premises are true, then the conclusion is true. And how do we know that the premises are true? All we can do is make up another set of premises to prove the first ones. And we thereby go into infinite regress. This is why we don't know the material world. We can only believe on the basis of the premises we happen to believe, i.e. our perception. This is the same in mathematics. People keep saying I know this, I know that, of course they will, if they didn't they wouldn't get a job or a flirt or the bowl of beans. We are good pretenders and we all do it.
    EB
    If the premises and their conclusion are proven to be sound and beyond reasonable doubt, the article, the thing being taken to be be true and factual is - by default - true beyond reasonable doubt because the premise and their conclusion are inseparable.

  10. Top | #40
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,317
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,979
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    I'm just using the standard definition of validity: https://www.britannica.com/topic/validity

    Validity, In logic, the property of an argument consisting in the fact that the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
    Well, tell me how or why an argument and a conditional are different from a logical perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Are you saying that the statement in the OP is intended to be an argument, rather than just a conditional? If so, what are the premises, what is the conclusion, and what logical rule justifies the conclusion given the premises?
    I didn't say it was an argument. It is a conditional.

    And I asked whether the implication was valid, not whether the argument was valid.
    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
  •