An interesting dialogue about Truth

About: BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS About: barbara cubed - the manual of pure logic


This book has certainly influenced my understanding of logic.  New students coming to the study of logic would be well advised to start here.  This definition clearly lays out the limits of logic.  Logic is not concerned with arriving at "The Truth"... it is strictly limited ... "it deals only with antecedents & consequents; something is given & something necessarily follows".   Logic just gives us rules of a game.  Nothing more, nothing less.  A good student of Logic knows this; but casually people will say, "This is logical", and think, therefore it is True. 

Tags

  1. logic
  2. barbara cubed

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-04 09:52:25 3353
MR 2009-03-04 08:49:24 3353
If your premises are true & you follow the rules of logic to get to your conclusions then your conclusions are true. Don't minimize logic. GIGO - garbage in => garbage out applies just about anywhere you apply it including language itself.
That works on a narrow "closed world" problem but does not address a larger "open world" process of perusing truth. 
You prolly should define your terms. I haven't much of a clue as to what you are talking about. North Korea is a closed world to those outside it.  The Universe is open to all who develop the tools to explore it; the Universe being all there is including spiritual thingys & ugly shit.
 

Mark de LA says
I answered your question on the other node!  In NLP of meta-programs, matching & miss-matching (the sameness vs difference) meta-program, polarity & sameness are just the particular ways a person relates to information, sensation & experience. Holding everything unknown as true or false is immaterial because you can get there from any perspective.  I tend to be a sameness person, i.e. I look for what is similar in a set of data, perceptions etc & hold that to be the core & look for contradictions & if there are none then I trigger the feeling of belief (& electrochemical shower of brain experience) I call the feeling of certainty that my map of the world is certain (meaning & semantics, truth). There are other descriptions for this process - this time I chose a rather materialistic NLP version.  3976 breaks it down into several more steps from an ontological perspective. I seem to get a stronger feeling of certainty the longer I hold-off the electrochemical storm of belief (the feeling of certainty).  Some people, however trigger it on the first match or miss-match; terminating the inquiry on the first so-called correct "answer".
 

Seth says
MR 2009-03-04 10:05:51 3353
seth 2009-03-04 09:52:25 3353
MR 2009-03-04 08:49:24 3353
If your premises are true & you follow the rules of logic to get to your conclusions then your conclusions are true. Don't minimize logic. GIGO - garbage in => garbage out applies just about anywhere you apply it including language itself.
That works on a narrow "closed world" problem but does not address a larger "open world" process of perusing truth. 
You prolly should define your terms. I haven't much of a clue as to what you are talking about. North Korea is a closed world to those outside it.  The Universe is open to all who develop the tools to explore it; the Universe being all there is including spiritual thingys & ugly shit.
 
In a "closed world" you assume that any statement that is not known to be true is false. In an open world you assume the opposite.  These are concepts in formal logic and neither assumption works in the real world - these are for toy academic worlds.  In the real world you pursue truth by discovering new information and testing that new information against your previous web of beliefs.  Another word for that is the scientific method.  In 3635 you seemed to cast some dispersions on my persuit of truth ... stating even that in my world "searching for the truth is futile".  But that is totally untrue.  You asked me a question there and i answered it.  Now answer my question: Do you have a different method of perusing truth than the one i outlined above?  

Seth says
... whatever ... lots of words avoiding acknowledging that you must use the same process of pursuit of truth that i do.    My only point now is to correct you statement that that in my world "searching for the truth is futile".    That is not true.  If you hold belief in your mind now you are seriously deluding yourself.  If you were not just trying to insult me for your own pleasure,  and actually hold that belief, then you should justify your statement.  If it is the former then you should admit it. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-04 11:44:05 3353
Sorry, Mark, remember the rule about calling RWG to end a train of through on my blog.  This is no exception.  If you want you RWG transaction to stand on my blog, do not accuse me of it in the process. Your comment, which as usual is not correctly formatted with </> html, will be deleted soon.
Thus proving my futility statement perfectly!!!!!!!


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-04-14 05:27:16 3353
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...
Yep, when d'A (& the others who made it up for him) makes up his religion you apparently absorb the dogma without examining it. No need! Logic seems to be worthless to some.

No consciousness & logic - no freedom. Zombies of  your own words & worlds.

Seth says
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...

Seth says
M 2013-04-14 09:09:34 3353
seth 2013-04-14 05:27:16 3353
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...
Yep, when d'A (& the others who made it up for him) makes up his religion you apparently absorb the dogma without examining it. No need! Logic seems to be worthless to some.

No consciousness & logic - no freedom. Zombies of  your own words & worlds.
I still like logic & proof. There does not exist a "proof" of anything else. See 16971 " "Clear thinking will inevably discover that the true nature of illative force is wholly empirical.  To prove is to demonstrate; the process is always sensible or perceptual, either as sensual or imaginative."   - CFR
Demonstrate on, dudes!

Seth says
seth 2013-12-18 11:40:13 3353
ME 2013-12-18 10:48:17 3353
I see no value in having a 1$ bill in my hand and looking at & saying from some other perspective this is not a dollar & maybe I should hold off until I get enough investigation into the matter & maybe it will show up as something else.


nor do i. 

the whole question, of course, is whether you can, or can not, trade what you have in your hand for something with somebody else.  to reliably trust that you can, you might just need to some kind of calculation or reckoning. 
I don't haggle about having a dollar bill in my hand unless there is some kind of reasonable suspicion that it is counterfeit which is highly improbable giving that there is no profit in counterfeiting one dollar bills.
Haggle on, dude!


Seth says
ME 2013-12-18 09:43:42 3353
M 2013-04-14 09:09:34 3353
seth 2013-04-14 05:27:16 3353
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...
Yep, when d'A (& the others who made it up for him) makes up his religion you apparently absorb the dogma without examining it. No need! Logic seems to be worthless to some.

No consciousness & logic - no freedom. Zombies of  your own words & worlds.
I still like logic & proof. There does not exist a "proof" of anything else. See 16971 " "Clear thinking will inevably discover that the true nature of illative force is wholly empirical.  To prove is to demonstrate; the process is always sensible or perceptual, either as sensual or imaginative."   - CFR
Demonstrate on, dudes!

well i don't think anyone here dis"likes" logic and proof.  something is given .... rules to extrapolate more are trusted ... then we can trust what is calculated just as very much as we trust that which is given and those rules.  i think that is the only "illative" force in logic and proof.  it's when we forget that what was given, cannot itself be tested (or demonstrated) with even the same level of trust as the proof that i get a bit queezy about the results.   me, i don't forget that what is proven is only proven within what was given ... er the assumptions of the system itself.  that is why i tend to relegate what people espouse as logical to place quite a bit shy of certainty.

Seth says
seth 2013-12-18 10:36:17 3353
ME 2013-12-18 09:43:42 3353
M 2013-04-14 09:09:34 3353
seth 2013-04-14 05:27:16 3353
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...
Yep, when d'A (& the others who made it up for him) makes up his religion you apparently absorb the dogma without examining it. No need! Logic seems to be worthless to some.

No consciousness & logic - no freedom. Zombies of  your own words & worlds.
I still like logic & proof. There does not exist a "proof" of anything else. See 16971 " "Clear thinking will inevably discover that the true nature of illative force is wholly empirical.  To prove is to demonstrate; the process is always sensible or perceptual, either as sensual or imaginative."   - CFR
Demonstrate on, dudes!

well i don't think anyone here dis"likes" logic and proof.  something is given .... rules to extrapolate more are trusted ... then we can trust what is calculated just as very much as we trust that which is given and those rules.  i think that is the only "illative" force in logic and proof.  it's when we forget that what was given, cannot itself be tested (or demonstrated) with even the same level of trust as the proof that i get a bit queezy about the results.   me, i don't forget that what is proven is only proven within what was given ... er the assumptions of the system itself.  that is why i tend to relegate what people espouse as logical to place quite a bit shy of certainty.
I wasn't talking logic, I was talking PROOF!  Logic is GIGO. Start with what is given or accepted as so - agreed upon & metamorphose your attention until the end result is proved also to be true, agreed upon etc.  & you will get a lot farther.  If you let feelings, sidetracks, memories & a lot of the other garbage that masquerades as thinking into the process you are just masturbating your mind. The negative proof starting from something absurd & follow the proof to an absurdity should work as well if you can keep your attention focused.


Seth says
I see no value in having a 1$ bill in my hand and looking at & saying from some other perspective this is not a dollar & maybe I should hold off until I get enough investigation into the matter & maybe it will show up as something else.


Seth says
ME 2013-12-18 10:46:02 3353
seth 2013-12-18 10:36:17 3353
ME 2013-12-18 09:43:42 3353
M 2013-04-14 09:09:34 3353
seth 2013-04-14 05:27:16 3353
i liked what nathan said about this subject before he was inadvertently and apparently mistakenly sent to this item ...
source:  Facebook here
 d'Artagnan Evergreen Barbosa Logic and proof uncover linearly organized beliefs, that is all they are useful for. They do not uncover anything about non-linear forms of thought such as intuitive jumps or creativity. And though logic and proof are generally applied as tools to uncover beliefs and thus are not thought of as beliefs themselves, they actually are only beliefs. One can believe in another tool that conflicts with logic and it will be just as useful a thing to believe in and use to uncover experience relationships. Logic is popular and old, but that does not make it more than a common belief system. Math is a descriptive language, but even within that language many things that are held to be universally true are only local beliefs. Anyone can demonstrate anything to someone else who holds the same beliefs that define what is being demonstrated.
...
Yep, when d'A (& the others who made it up for him) makes up his religion you apparently absorb the dogma without examining it. No need! Logic seems to be worthless to some.

No consciousness & logic - no freedom. Zombies of  your own words & worlds.
I still like logic & proof. There does not exist a "proof" of anything else. See 16971 " "Clear thinking will inevably discover that the true nature of illative force is wholly empirical.  To prove is to demonstrate; the process is always sensible or perceptual, either as sensual or imaginative."   - CFR
Demonstrate on, dudes!

well i don't think anyone here dis"likes" logic and proof.  something is given .... rules to extrapolate more are trusted ... then we can trust what is calculated just as very much as we trust that which is given and those rules.  i think that is the only "illative" force in logic and proof.  it's when we forget that what was given, cannot itself be tested (or demonstrated) with even the same level of trust as the proof that i get a bit queezy about the results.   me, i don't forget that what is proven is only proven within what was given ... er the assumptions of the system itself.  that is why i tend to relegate what people espouse as logical to place quite a bit shy of certainty.
I wasn't talking logic, I was talking PROOF!  Logic is GIGO. Start with what is given or accepted as so - agreed upon & metamorphose your attention until the end result is proved also to be true, agreed upon etc.  & you will get a lot farther.  If you let feelings, sidetracks, memories & a lot of the other garbage that masquerades as thinking into the process you are just masturbating your mind. The negative proof starting from something absurd & follow the proof to an absurdity should work as well if you can keep your attention focused.


as far as i can tell, you are not saying anything different than i said.  except perhaps, for me, there is no salient distinction between what you refer to as "logic" and what you refer to as "proof" all caps.  for me the difference is only kind of just like a different part of speech ... iow, proof is what you get when you follow logic ... it is the result, rather than the process.  then, of course, you go on to say it is gigo ... which is almost exactly what i said. 

the only funny strange part is how you sill and all appear to be in some kind of violent disagreement with me .

Seth says
no violence, sir.
not sure what you said is the same.  I'll go with mine.



Seth says
ME 2013-12-18 10:48:17 3353
I see no value in having a 1$ bill in my hand and looking at & saying from some other perspective this is not a dollar & maybe I should hold off until I get enough investigation into the matter & maybe it will show up as something else.


nor do i. 

the whole question, of course, is whether you can, or can not, trade what you have in your hand for something with somebody else.  to reliably trust that you can, you might just need to some kind of calculation or reckoning. 

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 "barbara cubed".
  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 "logic".
  6. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 19 viewings related by tag "logic".
  7. Thought Identity Entails the Laws of Logic with 8 viewings related by tag "logic".
  8. Thought The Rise of Gobbledygook. with 7 viewings related by tag "logic".
  9. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  10. Thought about: GW Document: Spring - #57 with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  11. Thought Illative force with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  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 "barbara cubed".
  15. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "barbara cubed".
  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 not (not X) is not necessarily X with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  19. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  20. Thought about: hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  21. Thought about: Sorites with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  22. Thought Some math musing re philosophy of mind with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  23. Thought about: Burningbird ? I love you 25% of the time with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  24. Thought Way to Go Coach! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  25. Thought Paradox and Otherness with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  26. Thought Pride an Glory in Your Code with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  27. Thought Extensional VS Intensional Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  28. Thought about: Not (not A) is still not A. with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  29. Thought about: logically speaking with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  30. Thought Better *Is* Better Than Is Or Is Not with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  31. Thought Barbara Cubed - Page 2 Illative Force with 0 viewings related by tag "barbara cubed".
  32. Thought dmiles with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  33. Thought The Excluded Middle with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  34. Thought logic is great, survival is better with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  35. Thought A == A aka Indetity with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  36. Thought Liberal Wet Dream with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  37. Thought How my thinking has changed with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  38. Thought If pigs could fly ... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  39. Thought FYI with 0 viewings related by tag "barbara cubed".
  40. Thought Aristotle on Topics with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  41. Thought Interesting dilog about paradoxes with a logic professor with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  42. Thought Philosophy Group with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  43. Thought That which is, IS! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  44. Thought That which is - may not BE! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  45. Thought about: a thing is identical with itself with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".