Logical froms (Philosophy)...HELP!?
493885
Michael Crichton's books have been best sellers\nGood writers do not write best sellers\nTherefore, Michael Crichton is not a good writer.
40843
What a pity that you cannot answer your own question! I'm getting curious...\n\nIt seems to be a question in pure logics rather than arithmetics: as you don't know me you cannot give me any apple (first proposition: False) \nBut canaries don't have teeth (second proposition: false)\n\nSo the implication is true... \n\nOtherwise, being the postulate contradictory, any proposition can be logically proven: including "lower than 3 and higher than 5"\n\nI'm giving numbers?
637851
The best way to convince somebody of something is by example.  If you have an idea or philosophy that you want other to understand. All you can do is "live" your principles.
2180
Logic is just another word for thinking and using the process of thinking things through to come up with conclusions.\n\nSo if the person is capable of thought, then they should be able to have logic explained to them.
796735
The whole point of the exercise is to see what YOU think, what YOUR line of reasoning is, and how YOU develop your line of argument.  If someone gives you an excellent thesis statement, you won't know what to do with it because you have no supporting argument.  How can you?  The premise is for an argument that isn't yours.\n\nThe way you do these is to reason within yourself how you believe, then write out your arguments to convince yourself and others that your line of reasoning is sound.  There is no "right" answer; but your logic will either be consistent or inconsistent.  If it is consistent, you will have a logical argument.\n\nAfter that, the thesis statement will write itself.
979939
Only one man has understood me,and even he has not  =  even if this one man said/showed that he understood me or agreed with me, he did not really fully understand my motives/hidden thoughts etc. In other words, I am too abstract for you pragmatic simpletons to understand me (but I am trying to say that nicely).\n \nthe real is rational and the rational is real  =  a thing can only be real if it is rational, and it is only rational if it is real. If it is real, then it must be rational and if it is rational, then it surely is real. It means the two are synonims, or they define each-other.
1016910
Logic and reasoning.  English, Mathematics, Geography especially.
1002460
Logical Fallacy. The best practice is to draw conclusions from irrefutable evidence (which any lawyer can tell you doesn't exist). Best not to draw conclusions at all if you can help it.
637043
i believe what you mean are "existential" and "universal" claims. the word existential refers to words such as some, many, few, or any other word which implies the existence of another set which does not contain members for which the "some..." statement is referring to. a universal statement includes the other group of words including all, none, every, etc which do not imply the existence of a group without the attribute referred to by the statement containing the all, every, etc.\n\nthe problem with universal statements involves a "universal generalization" about an entire set based on the existence of a few members which meet the criterion. example. "my dog is red, joes dog is red too, therefore all dogs are red."\n\nthe problem with the existential statements involve "existential instantiation" let me give you an example. "some dogs are red, i have a dog, therefore he is red". "if it rains the sidewalk is wet. the sidewalk is wet so therefore it rained." you see the problem with this line of reasoning\n\nin short \ndont conclude "all a is b" based on "a0 is b"\ndont conclude "a0 is b" based on "some a is b"
749633
Here is my evaluation based on logic\nArgument 1 Creation.\nPremise 1: true\nPremise 2: true\nPremise 3: true\nConclusion: logically flows from premises 1 to 3, so valid.\n\nArgument 2 Evolution.\nPremise 1: true\nPremise 2: true\nPremise 3: true if that site's proofs are true.\n\nConclusion: logically flows from premise 1 to 3 ( except you have to add the words: "and many are fascinated by evolution); so yes, your conclusion is Valid. \n\nBoy, you must be good in your logic class!
662040
There is a philosophy section if you wish to find a non-religious answer.  Philosophy is not religious.  You can go to a library or bookstore and find philosophy books.  They are usually found in non-fiction #100 to #199.  They include Aristotle and Plato and many others.  I do recommmend a book on philosophy for beginners:  "The COmplete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy".  I have it on my bookshelf and it is like "Cliff's Notes" of philosophy.  Check it out if you want.\n\nIf I may share something?  There is no "exact answer" or "perfect answer".  We can only find the answers that will fit us, that will "do it" for us individually and privately.  I understood this years ago after Wicca did not help me spiritually anymore.  What works for one will not work for another. :-)
524303
So X is dependent on TSOUT (the source of universal truth)\n\nAnd the TSOUT is dependent on X.\n\nThat, my friend, is circular logic, and as such, is a false proof.
330002
I believe there is logic in everything and everything is created in a logical manner.  Though we may not at once see the logic behind anything, we may at some point discover the rationale behind an event. Yes we can always arrive at the truth through logic.
756441
The quote is from Descartes' 'Discourse on Method'\n\nThe general idea is that he questions what he knows.  Assume that a grand deciever was capable of changing all you percieve (picture the Matrix etc, where something could make you see, smell etc things that aren't really there).   \n\nThe question is what can you trust.  The first assumption he makes is that no matter what 'reality' is,  the fact that he can consider his own existience, then he exists in some fashion.  'I think,  therefore I am'.  Even if he's decieved about everything,  he can trust that part. \n\nDescartes then goes on to prove the existence of god.   Quite an interesting book.
906335
You miss, however, that I never said free will implied deity, only that lack of free will implies lack of deity.\n\nEstablish this in formal logic in the following manner:\n\nA = A deity exists\nB = Free will exists.\n\nIF (A) THEN (B).\n\nNotice that I use IF, not IIF (if, not, if and only if).  I assert that Deity is sufficient cause, but not necessary cause.  There could be a scientific principle of which we are not yet aware that could create free will without the necessity of a deity.\n\nHowever, since I establish deity as a sufficient cause (really, what kind of deity would create perfectly deterministic if stochaistic thinking beings?), if free will can be disproven, then deity is disproven by modus tollens:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus tollens)\n\nThis can be shown to be Modus Ponens via the contrapositive:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nIF NOT B THEN NOT A. (contrapositive).\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus ponens)\n\nThis also means that the deific hypothesis is testable -- it can be falsified.  Show that there is no free will, and you show that there is no deity.\n\nHow to test free will?  Can free will exist?  We've already discussed this in some detail.  If you suppose the three axioms of science are valid (and to invalidate any of the three, you invalidate the ability to have any knowledge at all: Math & Logic are valid, observations are valid if based on direct sensation or math & logic, the supernatural either does not exist OR does not interfere with the natural), then free will can rationally be discounted.  Such discounting can be done as follows:\n\nThe mind is an emergent, if still not understood, property of the physical and energetic nature of the human being.  (nonsupernatural causation -- a soul would be supernatural).\n\nThe state of any physical system can be stochaistically determined from its previous state and the current inputs.  However, the past is 'past' and therefore it is determined.  The consequence is that I can predict the next state with great precision but in a few thousand states, the precision may be nearly nill, and within a million states, it is as close to zero as you can get.  (mathematical principle).\n\nThe stoichasm is a consequence of quantum randomness.  If quantum randomness is redefined as an input to the process (ie: I'm going to kill that guy but a virtual electron/positron pair form in my brain with the cascade effect of me changing my mind), then the stoichaism is removed.  The situation is now deterministicly based on the current state and the inputs.\n\nDeterminism is incompatible with free will.\n\n-----\n\nI agree that to have perfect knowledge of state and inputs is impossible.  However, the feasibility of a computation does not change its computability.  RSA encryption starts with taking two prime numbers of significant size and multiplying them together, then ditching the primes.  The security of RSA is based on the infeasibility to factor the multiple.  But I can give you an algorithm, perfectly deterministic, for factoring that number:\n\nN = P*Q.  Discard P & Q.\nMAX = sqrt(N).\nfor COUNTER 1 to MAX:\n.. if N / COUNTER is integer\n.... P = COUNTER\n.... Q = N / COUNTER\n.. endif\nendfor\n\n100% guaranteed this algorithm will work.  It just happens that it'll take 10^85 years to run it on a 4096-bit key.\n\n\n-------------\n\nCogito Sum, I in no way object to your choice to reference me as you have.  Quite the contrary, I consider it a significant honor and compliment that you consider my view sufficiently curious to bring it up specifically.\n\n------------\n\nAs I understand your added comment (sorry for delay, went to lunch), you are saying that since I cannot know the state of your mind without you reporting it, I cannot perform the calculations at all.  However, this overlooks the idea that whether you or I can detect it, the state DOES exist.  For example, if I fill an olympic sized swimming pool w
472527
I know a little about ontology as it relates to AI\n\nThere a list of ontologies at the first site, skimmed it. did not see anything but I may have missed something that you might like.\n\nThere a ontology on bibloograhy of the pholosophy of Mind\nwhich may be useful.\n\nContemporary Philosophy of Mind: An Annotated Bibliography \nThis is a bibliography of recent work in the philosophy of mind, philosophy of cognitive science, philosophy of artificial intelligence, and on consciousness in the sciences
676241
your logic is there but i do not know your language and its syntax.  You should also post the error message. syntactical or logical.