cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 12:54 pm
From Wikipedia:

Although the layperson may think that mathematical logic is the logic of mathematics, the truth is rather that it more closely resembles the mathematics of logic. It comprises those parts of logic that can be modelled mathematically. Earlier appellations were symbolic logic (as opposed to philosophical logic), and metamathematics, which is now restricted as a term to some aspects of proof theory.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 01:00 pm
Logical Thinking
You have three blocks in front of you, a blue one, a red one and a yellow one. You must remove two of them. If you take away the blue block, you may not take the red one. If you take away the red block, you may not take the yellow one. Which two blocks may be removed? To answer this puzzle you will need to think logically.

Logical thinking is not a magical process or a matter of genetic endowment, but a learned mental process, says Dr. Karl Albrecht in his book Brain Building. It is the process in which one uses reasoning consistently to come to a conclusion. Problems or situations that involve logical thinking call for structure, for relationships between facts, and for chains of reasoning that "make sense."

According to Dr. Albrecht the basis of all logical thinking is sequential thought. This process involves taking the important ideas, facts, and conclusions involved in a problem and arranging them in a chain-like progression that takes on a meaning in and of itself. To think logically is to think in steps.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 04:19 pm
neologist wrote:
Does it make sense to conceive ultimate truth, ultimate reality?

No. Without further definition of what 'ultimate truth' or 'ultimate reality' are supposed to mean, that sentence is completely meaningless.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 04:57 pm
Jason Proudmoore,

c.i. makes perfect sense with his discussion of logic. Logical reasoning gives VALID conclusions not TRUE ones.

e.g. (A) All religions are psychological opiates.
(B)Christianity is a religion.
(C) therefore Christianity is an opiate.

The conclusion C is valid irrespective of the "truth" of the premises A and B and such "truth" is a matter of consensus and contextual negotiation. And the conclusion could be "true" irrespective of the truth of the premises. "Factual statements" merly imply a high level of such consensus which we might term "mutual reality". Where there is assumed "universal consensus" we tend to use the term "objective fact" but in essence "objectivity" is a projection of that assumption.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 05:16 pm
All poodles are dogs (axiomatic)
Are all shepherds dogs? (define your terms)
Can shepherds have dogs? (context)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 05:18 pm
fresco, Thank you for your further clarification to which I totally agree.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 05:22 pm
Fresco is right-on, but I note you don't give a damn about my well wrought doggy stylings Sad
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 07:07 pm
I haven't read the entire thread but my definition of truth is the same as beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

We each look at life, love, lessons (morality) through the lens of our own upbringing, culture, exposures and experiences. Truth can only mean what it means to me. Your truth can only be true for you. There is a universal truth, but none of us know what it is.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 07:09 pm
It's not much of a universal truth unless or until it's universal.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 07:59 pm
hephzibah wrote:
So what Jason? You aren't going to reply to my last reply to you? Does that mean I win? Very Happy



I didn't know this was a contest.

But of course, sweetie, you win.

You've won the grand prize!!!
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
From Wikipedia:

Although the layperson may think that mathematical logic is the logic of mathematics, the truth is rather that it more closely resembles the mathematics of logic. It comprises those parts of logic that can be modelled mathematically. Earlier appellations were symbolic logic (as opposed to philosophical logic), and metamathematics, which is now restricted as a term to some aspects of proof theory.


What is your point?
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Logical Thinking
You have three blocks in front of you, a blue one, a red one and a yellow one. You must remove two of them. If you take away the blue block, you may not take the red one. If you take away the red block, you may not take the yellow one. Which two blocks may be removed? To answer this puzzle you will need to think logically.

Logical thinking is not a magical process or a matter of genetic endowment, but a learned mental process, says Dr. Karl Albrecht in his book Brain Building. It is the process in which one uses reasoning consistently to come to a conclusion. Problems or situations that involve logical thinking call for structure, for relationships between facts, and for chains of reasoning that "make sense."

According to Dr. Albrecht the basis of all logical thinking is sequential thought. This process involves taking the important ideas, facts, and conclusions involved in a problem and arranging them in a chain-like progression that takes on a meaning in and of itself. To think logically is to think in steps.


Is this a "copy and paste" contest? What is your point?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:02 pm
It's beyond your level of comprehension.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:07 pm
fresco wrote:
Jason Proudmoore,

c.i. makes perfect sense with his discussion of logic. Logical reasoning gives VALID conclusions not TRUE ones.

e.g. (A) All religions are psychological opiates.
(B)Christianity is a religion.
(C) therefore Christianity is an opiate.

The conclusion C is valid irrespective of the "truth" of the premises A and B and such "truth" is a matter of consensus and contextual negotiation. And the conclusion could be "true" irrespective of the truth of the premises. "Factual statements" merly imply a high level of such consensus which we might term "mutual reality". Where there is assumed "universal consensus" we tend to use the term "objective fact" but in essence "objectivity" is a projection of that assumption.



If you have taken any philosophy classes in your lifetime, answer me this…what do philosophers mean when they refer to "determining if a proposition is true or not based on logic"? Tell me, because I'd like to know. Let me see how this idea pulls you complete into the world of nonsense and incoherence.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's beyond your level of comprehension.


Perhaps...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:09 pm
Not "perhaps." Definitely!
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Not "perhaps." Definitely!

What you said.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:15 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
neologist wrote:
Jason;

Frank has bestowed upon you his banner.

Lead the charge.

Smite the insane one.

Careful not to hurt yourself. Laughing


Did Frank tell you he "bestowed upon" me his "banner"?

WOW, I feel great!!!!
I thought it would have been obvious.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:18 pm
neologist wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
neologist wrote:
Jason;

Frank has bestowed upon you his banner.

Lead the charge.

Smite the insane one.

Careful not to hurt yourself. Laughing


Did Frank tell you he "bestowed upon" me his "banner"?

WOW, I feel great!!!!
I thought it would have been obvious.


How could that be obvious? Don't tell me that you think logically now. Stop playing...come on.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:50 pm
Let me make something clear to you, JB.

J_B wrote:
I haven't read the entire thread but my definition of truth is the same as beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.


Truth is not in the eye of the beholder…but beauty is.

Check this out:

You would find a woman beautiful… but I would find THAT same woman ugly.
The truth to that is that (to you) you would find THAT woman beautiful, and to me she would not be so beautiful…that is the truth.

What is so difficult to understand?

J_B wrote:
We each look at life, love, lessons (morality) through the lens of our own upbringing, culture, exposures and experiences.


You are right…but that doesn't affect if a proposition is true or not.

J_B wrote:
Truth can only mean what it means to me. Your truth can only be true for you.


Hope you know that you are metaphorically speaking here.

J_B wrote:
There is a universal truth, but none of us know what it is.


We don't know? WOW!

Let's try this...what would be the truth to the following?

If today is Wednesday, tomorrow is Thursday. Can that be true…or false?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is truth?
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:20:35