Illative force

About: barbara cubed - the manual of pure logic

 From whence does the illiative force spring.  The illiative force comes from the unquestioned knowledge that different representations of the same thing  actually  do represent to the same thing.  So their names can be equated … any one substituted for the other.   It is the first law of logic.  The illiative force comes from that certainty.   Take that feature of representations away and there is no force to logic at all.   Try it in your head … or try reasoning with somebody who’s names represent something different than yours … trust me there will be no way for you to convince them of anything at all … your words to them will have no force.

  Bozo Faust

 
CFR in Barbara Cubed also used the term  “illative force” .  Here is what he said …

 

Tags

  1. logic
  2. 3 laws
  3. 1st law

Comments


Seth says
M. 2016-03-10 11:03:07 [item 20404#48738]
Doesn’t define illative force except to say that a syllogism (see aristotle) is an expression of it, whatever it is.
seth 2016-03-10 11:09:42 [item 20404#48741]
it clearly states the assumption which creates the actual illative force.
M. 2016-03-10 11:10:58 [item 20404#48743]
so we are talking about an assumption not a definition, eh?
seth 2016-03-10 11:17:57 [item 20404#48747]
the definition of “illiative” is referring to the that assumption … notwistanding that who wrote the dictionary probably did not mention it.  that word is just a way to call out that assumption as we talk to each other.
M. 2016-03-10 11:22:42 [item 20404#48748]
the assumption please exactly ? I defined it simply as therefore & what therefore means; null pointers not accepted or ones that point to outer space.
seth 2016-03-10 11:39:52 [item 20404#48751]
the asumption is exactly what GW stated very clearly above.   here let me factor out a few extra distracting terms …
 

We get Illiative force by combining two names of the same thing.

Bozo Faust’s interpretation of CFR’s pronouncements about logic.

M. 2016-03-10 12:00:56 [item 20404#48756]
Dude, your editing is NOT what is said on p.2  see 20401 or the quote in the body of the item.
The whole sentence begins with The fundamental law of logic ….. & ends with the capital word THING.
but has in the middle the clause the primary expression of illative force is ….. read your quote above.
-OR- munge onward
sad
seth 2016-03-10 22:00:47 [item 20404#48809]
i answered the question,  from whence does the illiative force spring.  The illiative force comes from the unquestioned knowledge that different representations of the same thing  actually  do represent to the same thing.  So their names can be equated … any one substituted for the other.   It is the first law of logic.  The illiative force comes from that certainty.   Take that feature of representations away and there is no force to logic at all.   Try it in your head … or try reasoning with somebody who’s names represent something different than yours … trust me there will be no way for you to convince them of anything at all … your words to them will have no force.
M. 2016-03-11 08:12:48 [item 20404#48837]
There is nothing about words which forces, predicts or guarantees any two of them jammed together describe the same thing. That is after all the point & the question – do they really? The illative force comes from the 1st figure or the syllogism . But garbage in most likely guarantees garbage out! cool
.. then, therefore etc … carry the illative force across the river . Elsewhere:
P.2693 84-5-4-28-14-3-MON (26/1/16 ago or 26.13 yrs from this writing)
".... The question of illative force is controversial in some minds.  In our book every Ultimate Particle has Consciousness, a Category concomitant with others such as Unity, Extension, Persistence, Motion i.e. each UP has an Ego, whose function is JUDGEMENT, which is expressed as a "statement" or "equation" properly quantified & qualified.  Note that not the statement but its MEANING is what FORCES you to assent, i.e., if you are a reasonable person.  Speech & Reasoning are equivalent: See what I mean when I say "Look Jane see Dick" - two levels. " 
wizzad 2016-03-11 08:20:48 [item 20404#48841]
i am not dealing with the he-said-she-said of what CFR said as opposed to what i said.  maybe just let that go.  that has nothing to do with what i am saying.   

please just look at what i said on its own merits.   then also look at what GW said on its own merits.   i think we got off on the wrong foot here by me saying that i was saying the same thing.   i think you need to get beyond the he-said-she-said in the plane of the authorship to see that CFR and Bozo here are crawling on the same edges.  
sorry the wizzard popped in there.   was unintentional

Seth says
M. 2016-03-10 11:03:07 [item 20404#48738]
Doesn’t define illative force except to say that a syllogism (see aristotle) is an expression of it, whatever it is.
seth 2016-03-10 11:09:42 [item 20404#48741]
it clearly states the assumption which creates the actual illative force.
M. 2016-03-10 11:10:58 [item 20404#48743]
so we are talking about an assumption not a definition, eh?
seth 2016-03-10 11:17:57 [item 20404#48747]
the definition of “illiative” is referring to the that assumption … notwistanding that who wrote the dictionary probably did not mention it.  that word is just a way to call out that assumption as we talk to each other.
M. 2016-03-10 11:22:42 [item 20404#48748]
the assumption please exactly ? I defined it simply as therefore & what therefore means; null pointers not accepted or ones that point to outer space.
seth 2016-03-10 11:39:52 [item 20404#48751]
the asumption is exactly what GW stated very clearly above.   here let me factor out a few extra distracting terms …
 

We get Illiative force by combining two names of the same thing.

Bozo Faust’s interpretation of CFR’s pronouncements about logic.

M. 2016-03-10 12:00:56 [item 20404#48756]
Dude, your editing is NOT what is said on p.2  see 20401 or the quote in the body of the item.
The whole sentence begins with The fundamental law of logic ….. & ends with the capital word THING.
but has in the middle the clause the primary expression of illative force is ….. read your quote above.
-OR- munge onward
sad
seth 2016-03-10 22:00:47 [item 20404#48809]
i answered the question,  from whence does the illiative force spring.  The illiative force comes from the unquestioned knowledge that different representations of the same thing  actually  do represent to the same thing.  So their names can be equated … any one substituted for the other.   It is the first law of logic.  The illiative force comes from that certainty.   Take that feature of representations away and there is no force to logic at all.   Try it in your head … or try reasoning with somebody who’s names represent something different than yours … trust me there will be no way for you to convince them of anything at all … your words to them will have no force.
M. 2016-03-11 08:12:48 [item 20404#48837]
There is nothing about words which forces, predicts or guarantees any two of them jammed together describe the same thing. That is after all the point & the question – do they really? The illative force comes from the 1st figure or the syllogism . But garbage in most likely guarantees garbage out! cool
.. then, therefore etc … carry the illative force across the river . Elsewhere:
P.2693 84-5-4-28-14-3-MON (26/1/16 ago or 26.13 yrs from this writing)
".... The question of illative force is controversial in some minds.  In our book every Ultimate Particle has Consciousness, a Category concomitant with others such as Unity, Extension, Persistence, Motion i.e. each UP has an Ego, whose function is JUDGEMENT, which is expressed as a "statement" or "equation" properly quantified & qualified.  Note that not the statement but its MEANING is what FORCES you to assent, i.e., if you are a reasonable person.  Speech & Reasoning are equivalent: See what I mean when I say "Look Jane see Dick" - two levels. " 
wizzad 2016-03-11 08:20:48 [item 20404#48841]
i am not dealing with the he-said-she-said of what CFR said as opposed to what i said.  maybe just let that go.  that has nothing to do with what i am saying.   

please just look at what i said on its own merits.   then also look at what GW said on its own merits.   i think we got off on the wrong foot here by me saying that i was saying the same thing.   i think you need to get beyond the he-said-she-said in the plane of the authorship to see that CFR and Bozo here are crawling on the same edges.  
M. 2016-03-11 08:31:58 [item 20404#48851]
I understand what GW said.  Yours seems to be a munge, i.e. a bunch of words said with authority of your selfie but having no illative force.  Yours seems to be pointing at something else.  It was never a he-said-she-said RWG or anything else for me.  Bad mind-reading on your part. You & GW have been at odds on logic for a very long time at least surrounding the time the comment was published (1984) 4 months before Common Logic was incorporated. laughing
seth 2016-03-11 08:35:37 [item 20404#48852]
But mark, we are talking about the same law … the 1st law of logic … the law that says you can substitute different names for the same thing and preserve the truth of your statements.   CFR said that is where you get your illiative force.  ← ok my interpertation.   I think if you read what CFR said independant of this dialogue with me, that you will grok that. 
and really he said it all in that one sentence …

See Also

  1. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "logic".
  2. Thought 3 state logic with 86 viewings related by tag "logic".
  3. Thought BARBARA CUBED - The Manual of Pure Logic with 75 viewings related by tag "logic".
  4. Thought The binary logic of two distinctions with 34 viewings related by tag "logic".
  5. Thought Identity Entails Logic with 20 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  6. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 19 viewings related by tag "logic".
  7. Thought The 3 laws of Thinking Domain content #ThreeLaws with 9 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  8. Thought Identity Entails the Laws of Logic with 8 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  9. Thought The Rise of Gobbledygook. with 7 viewings related by tag "logic".
  10. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  11. Thought about: GW Document: Spring - #57 with 4 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  12. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  13. Thought Worth Repeating with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  14. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  15. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  16. Thought Truth with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  17. Thought Conventional Logic vs Faith with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  18. Thought law of non-contradiction (2nd law) with 0 viewings related by tag "3 laws".
  19. Thought not (not X) is not necessarily X with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  20. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  21. Thought An interesting dialogue about Truth with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  22. Thought about: hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  23. Thought about: Sorites with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  24. Thought Some math musing re philosophy of mind with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  25. Thought about: Burningbird ? I love you 25% of the time with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  26. Thought Way to Go Coach! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  27. Thought Paradox and Otherness with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  28. Thought Pride an Glory in Your Code with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  29. Thought Extensional VS Intensional Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  30. Thought about: Not (not A) is still not A. with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  31. Thought about: logically speaking with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  32. Thought Better *Is* Better Than Is Or Is Not with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  33. Thought Barbara Cubed - Page 2 Illative Force with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  34. Thought dmiles with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  35. Thought The Excluded Middle with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  36. Thought logic is great, survival is better with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  37. Thought A == A aka Indetity with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  38. Thought Liberal Wet Dream with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  39. Thought How my thinking has changed with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  40. Thought If pigs could fly ... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  41. Thought Aristotle on Topics with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  42. Thought Interesting dilog about paradoxes with a logic professor with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  43. Thought Philosophy Group with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  44. Thought That which is, IS! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  45. Thought That which is - may not BE! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  46. Thought about: a thing is identical with itself with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".