Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

[Logikal]

No, this isn't logically valid because fire being hot doesn't imply that everything that is hot is fire - the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

All you can speak on is VALIDITY when you study MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. Why not speak on what is wrong with the claims themselves in the first place?

You cannot do so because you were not TRAINED to do so. You probably were not taught the rules of classical logic and don't know too many of them.

You cannot just randomly use any claim or sentence and make a legit argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, this isn't logically valid because fire being hot doesn't imply that everything that is hot is fire - the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Fire doesn't imply everything is hot, but fire is hot, this unnamed object is hot, thus it is fire. Yes, it's not correct, but it keeps with "hot = fire."
I could also say:
The moon is out when it is dark out
It is dark out
Thus the moon is out
Again, this is not necessarily true, but (generally speaking of course because often times the moon can be seen during the day time) logically when it is dark, the moon is out.

 

[Logikal]

I gave you what you basically learn from something like a 111 philosophy course. Nothing advanced or beyond an introduction to logic. In math and philosophy alike, if the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the statement is illogical. The same set of logic that I apply to coding or working on my car I apply to debate. 1+1 must equal 2. Anything else is wrong.

Theories of logic often to apply to reality. Humans may not be logical machines, but we know enough about how we function to know a starving human will resort to drastic and extreme solutions to put something in their belly. It may not be rational to eat mud or rocks given the lack of nutrition and difficulty of digestion, but logically it works out when your belly is rumbling and you are very weak and approaching death.

It seems you may only win in your head. You have adequately demonstrated you do not have the background in philosophy, math, and ethics that some other members here have.

How can you CONCLUDE THAT when you refuse to use the terminology?

All you and your math buddies have doe is demonstrate you can SOMETIMES apply your reasoning skills. Notice the word SOMETIMES. How about addressing the concepts not the demonstrations? I gave concepts such as contraposition which you in all likely will learn which will be objectively wrong. It is or will be objectively wrong because the context is not universal and has false instances as a result. Let's go. Let's see who knows more if you like.

 

[ratiocinator]

Fire doesn't imply everything is hot, but fire is hot, this unnamed object is hot, thus it is fire. Yes, it's not correct, but it keeps with "hot = fire."
I could also say:
The moon is out when it is dark out
It is dark out
Thus the moon is out
Again, this is not necessarily true, but (generally speaking of course because often times the moon can be seen during the day time) logically when it is dark, the moon is out.

Your statements didn't actually imply equality "fire is hot" doesn't mean "hot is fire". It's basically equivalent to saying

If it's fire, then it's hot
X is hot
Therefore X is fire

or

If the moon is out then it is dark
It is dark
Therefore therefore the moon is out

Which are clear affirming the consequent fallacies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which are clear affirming the consequent fallacies.

I know they are fallacies. But the point was to demonstrate how an incorrect statement can be a logical statement. I've also seen all Asians liking rice used as an example of such things.
Also, I am pulling these examples from freshman level logic courses that then lead into evaluating the claims themselves rather (and then into all the fallacies) than accepting a logical argument as a necessarily true statement. Maybe I didn't get the phrasing exactly right, but it still stands that a logical statement is not necessarily a truthful statement.

 

[Logikal]

I know they are fallacies. But the point was to demonstrate how an incorrect statement can be a logical statement. I've also seen all Asians liking rice used as an example of such things.
Also, I am pulling these examples from freshman level logic courses that then lead into evaluating the claims themselves rather than accepting a logical argument as a true statement. Maybe I didn't get the phrasing exactly right, but it still stands that a logical statement is not necessarily a truthful statement.

The second sentence makes utterly nosense. You associate a logical claim with incorrect claims? Tell those people here without logic 101 how can something be LOGICAL and BE INCORRECT at the same time? Isn't the purpose of logic to CORRECT mistakes in reasoning? Well look a here we see a DIFFERENCE between MATHEMATICAL LOGIC and other forms of logic after all.

I would not begin with BS premises from the start. Before you write down anything you need to KNOW What you are speaking on before you randomly write sentences down and try using MATH mechanics. All You can use VALIDITY for is if a person is consistent.

Just so you guys know every lie used as premises will be valid. Every contradictory premise will create a valid argument. So how important is validity in reality with this in mind?

 

[ratiocinator]

I know they are fallacies. But the point was to demonstrate how an incorrect statement can be a logical statement. I've also seen all Asians liking rice used as an example of such things.
Also, I am pulling these examples from freshman level logic courses that then lead into evaluating the claims themselves rather (and then into all the fallacies) than accepting a logical argument as a necessarily true statement. Maybe I didn't get the phrasing exactly right, but it still stands that a logical statement is not necessarily a truthful statement.

Not entirely sure what you mean by a "logical statement", then. There are two issues with any logical argument - if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false, then it is said to be valid (regardless of the truth or otherwise of its premises). Hence

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

is a valid argument. If an argument is valid and its premises are true, it is said to be sound. Your fire and moon examples weren't even valid.

See: Validity and Soundness

 

[Nous]

The premises construct the relationships in the diagram and the conclusion merely points out that the resulting "free will" choices are contained within deterministic events.

Wow, just wow. So what you're saying here is that your P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination") is not true. Some events are not "the result of determinism and randomness in some combination," according to your (interpretation of your) P3.

Have you ever seen a Venn diagram of an argument where one premise puts a term in a circle, and another premise takes it out of that circle?

Irrationality must be fun, eh? Do you predict that you will be able to make a sound and valid argument at some point? If so, how long should we expect to wait on that?

 

[Logikal]

Not entirely sure what you mean by a "logical statement", then. There are two issues with any logical argument - if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false, then it is said to be valid (regardless of the truth or otherwise of its premises). Hence

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

is a valid argument. If an argument is valid and its premises are true, it is said to be sound. Your fire and moon examples weren't even valid.

See: Validity and Soundness

I get the whole validity thing which is the FOCUS of MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. The distinction I was making is that as I was taught I was not allowed to bring forth the argument unless the premises were true. This is NOT emphasized in MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. I know the difference between valid and sound. All sound arguments are valid by definition. In this way the philosopher is TAUGHT QUALITY over mechanics. Sort of like Papa JOHNS pizza: " better ingredients better pizza". Thus if all my premises are true from the start and I have proper form the argument will be SOUND and all sound arguments are VALID. I get a win win. If all you are taught is VALIDITY you will find this is not useful in reality.

 

[Nous]

Things that are logical are logical when the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises.
[. . . ]
Now, if I make something like this, it would be false but logical:
Claim 1: Fire is hot
Claim 2: This object is hot.
Conclusion: This object must be fire.

Wow, just wow. Can you identify your terms? Which syllogism do you say this is?

 

[Nous]

See, the problem is that people who lack the ability to choose a true proposition over a falsehood lack the ability to argue that they lack that ability.

 

[ratiocinator]

So what you're saying here is that your P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination") is not true. Some events are not "the result of determinism and randomness in some combination," according to your P3.

LOL You didn't actually stop to think about this did you - or even look at the diagram? Nothing in it is outside of the determined and random event sets.

Have you ever seen a Venn diagram of an argument where one premise puts a term in a circle, and another premise takes it out of that circle?

Do try to pay some attention. P3 further restricts the results of the other premises - specifically excluding randomness from "free will" choices.

This really isn't complicated.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wow, just wow. Can you identify your terms? Which syllogism do you say this is?

This is actually all you can do, isn't it? You cannot say what's actually wrong with the argument - point out where the logic falls down (as it obviously does and as I tried to point out and explain) - all you can do is complain that it doesn't exactly conform to one of the patterns you've learned (by rote, I assume).

You are showing no actual comprehension and no inclination at all to be helpful or to inform.

 

[Logikal]

This is actually all you can do, isn't it? You cannot say what's actually wrong with the argument - point out where the logic falls down (as it obviously does and as I tried to point out and explain) - all you can do is complain that it doesn't exactly conform to one of the patterns you've learned (by rote, I assume).

You are showing no actual comprehension and no inclination at all to be helpful or to inform.

This is the kettle calling the pot black. You have done the same thing! You can't use the logic terminology. All you have done is LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! SEE!

How about explaining the process pal? It so easy all people should just understand it is that what you are thinking? How do you reach that conclusion pal?

Then you have the nerve to accuse some one of learning by route? All you do is mechanics. You can't explain WHY the mechanics even work in the first place.

Let me give you a concept and see if you can discuss it. What is contraposition?
If logic is all the same surely you can define it correctly right?

 

[Nous]

LOL You didn't actually stop to think about this did you - or even look at the diagram? Nothing in it is outside of the determined and random event sets.


Do try to pay some attention. P3 further restricts the results of the other premises - specifically excluding randomness from "free will" choices.

This really isn't complicated.

So apparently you do not dispute that your are saying exactly what I noted that your "argument" says. I.e., that "all events are the result of determinism and randomness in some combination," that "conscious events are events," but conscious events are not "the result of determinism and randomness in some combination".

Have you ever seen any sound argument where one premise contradicts a previous premise?

If you were able to state a valid and sound argument, I'd ask you to define "randomness". But you're not there yet.

 

[Nous]

This is actually all you can do, isn't it? You cannot say what's actually wrong with the argument - point out where the logic falls down (as it obviously does and as I tried to point out and explain) - all you can do is complain that it doesn't exactly conform to one of the patterns you've learned (by rote, I assume).

You didn't "point out where the logic falls down" in @Shadow Wolf 's "argument".

She stated a fallacy of undistributed middle.

You are showing no actual comprehension and no inclination at all to be helpful or to inform.

You need to inform yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

What if you asked this theoretical machine to predict the position of an object in let's say 10 minutes. Why couldn't it do that if it knows the current location of all matter in the universe and all known forces? So once knowing, I move the object to somewhere else and keep it there. I could easily believe it could predict the location correctly when no conscious entity is involved.

I think the argument still theoretically works to prove free-will.

The fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of these events would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to know the outcome of all current locations of all matter in the universe and all known forces, and know the sequence of the following events at any time t.

 

[George-ananda]

The fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of these events would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to know the outcome of all current locations of all matter in the universe and all known forces, and know the sequence of the following events at any time t.

Difficult 'yes' but theoretically possible for the sake of this thought experiment.

 

[shunyadragon]

Difficult 'yes' but theoretically possible for the sake of this thought experiment.

. . . because of the nature of the fractal elements of our existence I would not consider it theoretically plausible.

It is so far out on hypothetical it could be hardly be considered possible proof of anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

So apparently you do not dispute that your are saying exactly what I noted that your "argument" says. I.e., that "all events are the result of determinism and randomness in some combination," that "conscious events are events," but conscious events are not "the result of determinism and randomness in some combination".

So you don't understand English, you can't read a Venn diagram, and you can't follow a simple argument. I give up - I really can't be bothered to correct your daft misunderstandings any more.