Started by SatanLucy
BK AKA SL, generally talks more or less non-sense, though will occasionally astound with an outburst of rationality.
Nonetheless they are currently a vital contributor to DebateCraft.
So keep up the good work Lucy.
Maybe if you reduce your IQ, they might start making sense.
Bullshit and sense, clever stupid.
Look no further, one is still the President of the USA.
Which goes to show that bullshit and sense can achieve great things.
Trump has taken several IQ tests and passed them.
No, Meow-logic isnt logic.
Ok, so now you’re just playing silly word games.
Logic is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from given a set of premises.
You started this thread listing limitations of logic (premises) and then concluded from that set of premises that logic is not valid. In other words, you used logic to argue against logic.
What you’re actually calling meow logic now isn’t logic at all, it’s just unsubstantiated hand waiving. Essentially, this is the classic “if we can’t be 100% certain then every claim and/or conclusion is the same”.
It’s a tired old trick used by everyone who gets to the point where the decide to continue believing things that have no basis in fact or reason. Call it whatever you want, we’ve seen this movie many times before.
Also, if I were you, I wouldn't use logic to attack Meow-logic. It seems like quite a pointless thing to do
You’re actually right about that, trying to use logic in a conversation with someone advocating for magic does seem pretty pointless. Enjoy this little fantasy idea of yours, the rest of us will get back to dealing with reality in its actual terms.
Do you really want to separate from Lucy and AI dabbler.
It's also circular reasoning, because you are using logic to argue for logic.
I haven’t presented an argument for logic genius, all I’ve done so far is show you why your argument is childishly silly.
This is for anyone else reading this, since these concepts are beyond you.
There is no such thing as proving or disproving logic. We rely on logic because it’s inescapably foundational. To argue for logic, requires the use of logic. To argue against logic, requires the use of logic. So you are presuming the validity of logic the second you engage in any kind of intended coherent thought. In other words… we have no choice in the matter. The second we have decided that we want to make sense out of something, we have already ceded to staying within logic’s boundaries.
You can pretend this isn’t true all you want. It will still be. The second your mind starts working to decide the best way to respond to this - whether to craft a thought out reply or type a few meaningless words to avoid using logic so you don’t have to cede my point - you have already lost. You have already figured out what you wanted to accomplish and concluded as to which is the best way to get that response. That’s called logic, no matter how you try to rebrand it or pretend to be using something else.
Who decides which logic is superior?
You used logic to disprove arguments against logic, so yeah it's circular reasoning
I’ve already explained why it’s not. Look up the definition of foundational.
False, I don't rely on logic.
You just did. I made a statement and you concluded it’s false. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Spoiler alert; the process you utilized has a name that starts with L.
This statement is only true if logic is true
Category error. So you still don’t even understand what logic is . Got it.
If all your arguments depend on logic, you have no non-circular way to disprove arguments against logic.
Why would this be a problem? What is the issue with circular reasoning?
I am amazed that someone can say "the moment you presume validity of logic, you presume validity of logic", and not realize how dumb he sounds.
Dunning-Kruger at its finest.
The idea that we’re all living in a huge round ball and those at the bottom are not falling away from it sounds pretty dumb until you understand gravity. This is the level of stupidity of this statement.
Best way is to respond with Meow-logic. That way, I don't have to use logic.
So *if* you respond using meow logic, *then* you do not have to utilize logic.
I wonder if there is a name to describe what process if/then statements such as this are using…
Different foundations exist, or maybe none exist. Your arguments are still circular.
So basically, “I know you are but what am I”… cause that’s the level of thought applied to this response.
I used Meow-logic.
In other words, I just pulled an answer out of my ass and because I didn’t think about my words at all I didn’t use logic…
Then sure, I’ll give you that one.
Why would it be a category error?
Because “true” means that a statement matches to reality. Logic is not a statement that can be evaluated in such terms, logic is the tool you’re using to do the evaluating. It’s a totally different thing.
Circular reasoning is only okay when Meow says it is. So in this case, its not okay.
Exactly the kind of unserious crap I can expect from an unserious site member.
Are you saying that my arguments against logic are using logic? So they are logically true then?
No genius, you’re using the process to arrive at your conclusions, that doesn’t mean you are doing so free of errors.
Errors are a result of poor logic.
Where is proof that logic is the tool to evaluate reality? Where is proof that logic is not a statement? Where is proof that this reality of yours exists?
These questions are entirely too stupid to engage with.
Errors are not logical. So am I using logic or not?
You’re trying to, and clearly failing.
It’s called nipping it at the bud.
For your own sake, I really hope you’re trolling.
Would it make your concessions feel better?
Ah, so you are just trolling. That’s good, I was starting to be afraid that you really were that stupid. You almost had me there.
"You are using logic to disprove logic!!!"
- "I am using logic? So my arguments are logical?"
"No, your arguments aren't logical."
- "But logical means using logic"
Like many words in the English language, logic has more than one application. Trust for example can be asserted as a state of mind (I trust you with by car) or to describe an action/decision one has made (I am going to trust you with my car). They don’t carry the same meaning.
Logic works exactly the same way. someone can use logic (as is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from a given set of premises) and someone can be logical (as in assert conclusions that are logically valid).
These don’t mean the same thing, so the only thing your imaginary conversation reveals is that you do not understand the different ways in which the word logic can be asserted.
How do you use logic without being logical?
This is literally what I just spent 3 paragraphs explaining to you. Try reading it.
