No God???

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

To compare ideas, you have to have an understanding of BOTH of those ideas beforehand.

Yes I know, that's my point.

1 is not the opposite of zero, but anyway... Egyptians, I think, had no concept of zero. They never imagined the possibility of 0 of something. It never occured to them. Yet they figured out how to use 1 and many other numbers quite well.

Yes it is. 1 is when you have a lack in zero, or the perscence of something. 1 is the prescence of some thing, 0 is not having the prescence of that thing. Why the Egyptians, or anyone else for that matter, were ever unaware of zero boggles my mind, and in actuality I think it was very similar to people believing the earth was flat. They just weren't able to reason as easily back then. There is NO definition of one without zero. Really, just try and define it. I guarantee you there is some indirect reference to zero in every attempt you'll make.

And in any case, this stemmed from gods supposed goodness right? So god could give everyone knowlege of pain, and then let them have pleasure forever on. Sound good?

Well I wouldn't say that, however the idea that there are certain absolutes that are assumed to be true is the only "non- circular"(well not really) way out of this. And the idea that one or both just simply exist without any defintion may be the only answer, but this is still a bit dubious.

I meant that on average every particle would cancel out anothers movment. Maybe its a dumb idea, but I meant that maybe the universe has onie particle with a certain motion x on one side and a particle with motion -x on the other, canceling out. Thus the universe would be still, on average. Just like the Integration (area under) a cosine curve is 0 on average, -1 one side 1 on the other, cancels to 0. ya..

You are speaking of the entire universe, however I am speaking of parts moving in general. The fact that particles move, is what is paradoxical. It all has to do with Cause and Effect, for every Cause was once an Effect, thus the question is, how was there ever an initial Cause.

This is creating a ton of circular logic. Circular logic is a problem you know -- because it doesn't prove anything.

I know it is, however ALL logic is circular that is basic and absolute. That is my main point. When finding the defintion of a concept you are finding the most basic question of that concept, Becuase a concept is not looked upon as an Effect it's looked upon as a Cause. Hence when it IS looked upon as an Effect its definition becomes a bit more ambiguous.

As I said earlier, the following are the very most basic of basics in logic...

A=A because A is A and A is A because A=A.

Knowing that A=A and that A is A, the next question arises...what is A?

Now this then leads into the circular

A is (NOT-NOT A)/(Not B)

A is not equal to B because B=NOT A. And because A is NOT B, A is A.

Now, try and define 1 and I am sure if you look at how you came to your conclusion carefully you will see exactly what is above.

 

[Frencheneesz]

CHRISCUNNINGHAM: Read snakelords comment, it gives some good points

"Yes I know, that's my point. "

No, your point is that you need to compare things before being able to know one of the things you are comparing. Completely illogical.

"1 is when you have a lack in zero, or the perscence of something"

No.... well, yes it is, but that doesn't make it opposite. Is any other number besides zero, zeros opposite? NO. 2 is not zeros opposite either. Infinite is zeros opposite. And infinite is a very hard concept to grasp completely, indeed.

"There is NO definition of one without zero."

Even if I could not express a definition of one without the use of zero, that doesn't mean that there is none. The english language is far from capable of explaining states of mind and mental processes with exactity.

A definition in itself ALWAYS assumes that you know other information, so to explain the concept I must use concepts that you have already developed. Given that this is the case I could define one as: the integer before 2, a single unit of, and in theory I could even define one as: one, because you understand the concept.

An incorrect definition would be: the lack of zero. The ONLY definition I could think involving zero would be: the integer after zero.

"Why the Egyptians, or anyone else for that matter, were ever unaware of zero boggles my mind"

Of course, because we use the concept so much now, but we don't know exactly how to explain the concept ourselves.

"They just weren't able to reason as easily back then."

My bitch ass. They were able to reason just as well back then. HOWEVER, "back then" they had a different mind-set, different teachings, different ideas. And if they were so unreasonable, how did they do the impossible? - understand one without understanding zero.

"A=A because A is A and A is A because A=A."

You do realize that the "=" sign means exactly the same thing as "is".. And no, A=A for other reasons than because A=A. The processes of the human mind are far from being understood, and thus our reasons aren't even known to ourselves unless we can articulate them through language. We must have axioms to do anything, and this is one of them. Without this axiom NOTHING would work. The reason you give isn't circular logic, it is restating the hypothesis.

In any case, circular logic DOESN'T WORK. Circular logic implies either a false premise or other reasons. You are arguing something irrational. If things were the way you place them, we would not be able to know anything.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

No, your point is that you need to compare things before being able to know one of the things you are comparing. Completely illogical.

No, my point is that one must understand both ideas in order to have an a concept of a 10 on the pleasure scale. However to understand any concept I have to know what its opposite is. Define happiness.

No.... well, yes it is, but that doesn't make it opposite. Is any other number besides zero, zeros opposite? NO. 2 is not zeros opposite either. Infinite is zeros opposite. And infinite is a very hard concept to grasp completely, indeed.

First of all why zero be zero's oppoite? Secondly I am talking about the (No thing)-(some thing)opposites, not the nothing-everything opposite, these are two different Nothings.

A definition in itself ALWAYS assumes that you know other information, so to explain the concept I must use concepts that you have already developed. Given that this is the case I could define one as: the integer before 2, a single unit of, and in theory I could even define one as: one, because you understand the concept.

Riiggghhtt, meaning it is circular and you have to make assumptions at some instance. Meaning you have just proven my point that you will hop around the same concept using other words that are synonymous in order to define the given word/concept. Yet all of these words are synonymous, meaning you can't define anything, for every word you would use to define the given word is also defined by that given word.

An incorrect definition would be: the lack of zero. The ONLY definition I could think involving zero would be: the integer after zero.

I said indirectly referring to zero, not directly. Define 1.

Of course, because we use the concept so much now, but we don't know exactly how to explain the concept ourselves.

Why don't we?

And if they were so unreasonable, how did they do the impossible? - understand one without understanding zero.

Quite parallel to the manner in which we understand that if you push a ball it will move into the direction you push it, without initially knowing why or how this happens but still being sure of the fact that it will move in the direction we push it.

You do realize that the "=" sign means exactly the same thing as "is"

Yes I do...

Do you realize you think with this method all the time.

.. And no, A=A for other reasons than because A=A.

Not when it is an absolute. Define one.

The processes of the human mind are far from being understood, and thus our reasons aren't even known to ourselves unless we can articulate them through language.

This is true, however language is a product of logic. And if it cannot be established through language then it is not logical.

We must have axioms to do anything, and this is one of them. Without this axiom NOTHING would work. The reason you give isn't circular logic, it is restating the hypothesis.

How is restating the hypothesis not circular???

-In any case, circular logic DOESN'T WORK. Circular logic implies either a false premise or other reasons. You are arguing something irrational. If things were the way you place them, we would not be able to know anything.

Define one.

 

[Frencheneesz]

I'd really rather not argue this with you any more. Asking me to define one is not a response sorry.

"This is true, however language is a product of logic. And if it cannot be established through language then it is not logical."

So every ounce of logic we have went into creating language? Well you are the master of logic then..

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

So every ounce of logic we have went into creating language? Well you are the master of logic then..

Obviously....

What, you have never heard that before???

Aristotle formed laws of language through logic....


http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/quine.htm

...and it explains....

" For a statement may be described as analytic simply when it is synonymous with a logically true statement.

So, if the verification theory can be accepted as an adequate account of statement synonymy, the notion of analyticity is saved after all. However, let us reflect. Statement synonymy is said to be likeness of method of empirical confirmation or infirmation. just what are these methods which are to be compared for likeness? What, in other words, is the nature of the relationship between a statement and the experiences which contribute to or detract from its confirmation?

The most naive view of the relationship is that it is one of direct report. This is radical reduction. Every meaningful statement is held to be translatable into a statement (true or false) about immediate experience. Radical reductionism, in one form or another, well antedates the verification theory of meaning explicitly so-called."

I'd really rather not argue this with you any more. Asking me to define one is not a response sorry.

I'm not arguing I am debating/explaining ,haha, but ok,

....that isn't a "I CAN'T define one...." is it???

...sure seems like it....

 

[Frencheneesz]

Our langauge is not perfect, therefore we do NOT have all the tools developed to explain every logical idea.

You define one, ass-trinket

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
No need to use the Bible. If there is no suffering there is no pleasure. For, pleasure has no definition without suffering. There can either be both or there can be neither, nothing in between.

DarkEyedBeauty
Actually pleasure cannot exist without suffering. What would we have to compare it to? If there was no comparison, everything would feel the same, we would just be in this constant state, and that we would know nothing different.

This would indicate that pain/pleasure is a binary condition. Certainly there are more points on the scale than that; in which case there could be a range of increasing pleasure and no pain. A massage doesn't feel as good as sex but I'll take it over a board to the back of the head any day.

So no, I don't think that the "there must be suffering for there to be pleasure" argument flies. Pain and pleasure are merely evolutionary survival traits; they helped to drive the individual's behavior towards that which is beneficial for their genetic line and away from that which is harmful.

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
This is true, however language is a product of logic. And if it cannot be established through language then it is not logical.

Logic is a product of language; it was developed by formalizing reason. Also, a system may be logical and not linguistic (pure mathematics, the physical logic of circuits and gates in a computer chip).

~Raithere

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

So no, I don't think that the "there must be suffering for there to be pleasure" argument flies. Pain and pleasure are merely evolutionary survival traits; they helped to drive the individual's behavior towards that which is beneficial for their genetic line and away from that which is harmful.

Yes they may be evolutionary traits, however, what was the basis of the concept's establishment?

For instance, what told the brain to tell the body, to create new a chemical/signature that signals a new concept of pain? What did it define this "pain" as, for in order for one to know that he is feeling "pain" he has to know what pain is.

Logic is a product of language; it was developed by formalizing reason. Also, a system may be logical and not linguistic (pure mathematics, the physical logic of circuits and gates in a computer chip).

So, you're saying that everyone could speak before they could reason?

And you contradict yourself a bit, if a system can be logical while not being linguistic that imples that logic is independent of lingustics, hence logic cannot be a product of language.

I will however reword my original statment a bit, Language and Logic are synonymous.

You define one, ass-trinket

Very good choice in words.....

One is the lack of zero. One is when I have the prescence of a thing.

When I have the prescence of somehting this implies that I don't have the abscence of it. Thus, I am lacking absence.

Now of course I could use synonyms of prescence, and define it with that method, however I would simply hop around the exact same idea...a lack in absence.

Our langauge is not perfect, therefore we do NOT have all the tools developed to explain every logical idea

No, logic is not perfect, therefore it is not possible to have a perfect language based on an imperfect logic.

In order to form any type of conclusion based on logic we need to make a Given Absolute that is assumed to be true without any corroboration for this assumption except the system and conclusion of which it is this assumption is the absolute of.

A=A

What is A?

Not NOT-A or NOT B

What is B?

...

Very paradoxical indeed. However This is all that exists in logic. And it is quite easy to show logics true nature with two sentences....

**This statement is true.

This statement is true that its true.

This statement is true about what?

That it's true.

-A circular progression...

**This statememt is false.

This statement is false that it's false.

False about what?

That it's false.

Meaning it's true.

True about what?

That it's false.

-A circular progression...

 

[Frencheneesz]

"what told the brain to tell the body, to create new a chemical/signature that signals a new concept of pain?"

God damnit man! Do you not know the concepts of evolution? Its frikking random! Throw a zillion different chemicals down a volcano, and they won't come out quite the same every time.

"So, you're saying that everyone could speak before they could reason?"

Like you said, language is a product of reason. Have you ever heard something like "a bug is an insect, but an insect is not always a bug". A humans is ALWAYS an animal, however find any random animal and it would probably not be a human.

Language is a subset of reason, all language comes from reason, but not all reason comes from language.

You're argument is really idiotic.

"One is the lack of zero. One is when I have the prescence of a thing."

No, its not. That is not a definition of one. One is a number. You just defined any number besides zero. 2 is the lack of zero, 3 is, 54059 is. Infinite is.

"This statement is true that its true. "

Both statments are nonsensical. They don't mean anything. You are a complete wacko, let me tell ya. hmm how do you block someone again?

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Wow, calm yourself. What's your problem.

Like you said, language is a product of reason.

Like I said....

"I will however reword my original statment a bit, Language and Logic are synonymous."

A humans is ALWAYS an animal, however find any random animal and it would probably not be a human.

What's your point.

Even animals have a logistic/linguistic sytem which the follow.

Language is a subset of reason, all language comes from reason, but not all reason comes from language.

You're argument is really idiotic.

Mm hmm.....

Prove it....

No, its not. That is not a definition of one. One is a number. You just defined any number besides zero. 2 is the lack of zero, 3 is, 54059 is. Infinite is.

This is true. However one is the FIRST number that exists after zero, additionally every number after one is a product of one, hence they will all include the most basic defintion because they are a product of this defintion.

By the way, it is spelled infinity, not infinite. The latter is the adjective form of infinity.

Both statments are nonsensical.

Clearly, however both statement are absolutes.

That is the point. Because these staments are irrational it shows how absolutes are irrational, for both of these statments are the abosolute and the logic of the statement placed into one. Thus, it is the logic needed to state an absolute.

Think about what makes these statements illogical, and why it is that these statements are illogical.

You have simply restated my point that these statments are nonsensical.

But why is it that they are??

You are a complete wacko, let me tell ya. hmm how do you block someone again?

I am a complete wacko.....well then.....

What reasons do you have for blocking me????

Because I am arguing something stupid, or because I am arguing something that is a liitle over your head by some obvious reasons i.e. the fact that you are calling me a wacko, saying my argument is idioitic, and using profanity unecessarily indicating anxious frustration....

All of the above implies my latter presumption, that this is over your head, for if I thought someone was wrong I would refute everything they say, before I would call them a wacko....

...but hey, I guess that's just me....

Don't say you have refuted anything I have said, because you haven't. You want to prove me wrong???

Define the concept of one.

Define happiness.

Prove to me that the statements...

This statement is true.

This statement is false.

...are nonsensical for any other reason than the fact that they are self-defining statments, thus an absolute.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
Yes they may be evolutionary traits, however, what was the basis of the concept's establishment?

For instance, what told the brain to tell the body, to create new a chemical/signature that signals a new concept of pain? What did it define this "pain" as, for in order for one to know that he is feeling "pain" he has to know what pain is.

No one. Why does the rain fall; does someone need to tell it to? No, the natural forces which comprise the Universe give rise to the condition which causes rain. Pain is simply a negative sensory experience. Those creatures that had the ability to detect bodily harm survived to reproduce while those who couldn't, died.

So, you're saying that everyone could speak before they could reason?

No, but we had speech before logic. Logic is merely a system of formalized reason. Noting the behavior of other animals, we probably had some limited ability to reason before we developed language but only after we had language could we develop such a formal system.

And you contradict yourself a bit, if a system can be logical while not being linguistic that imples that logic is independent of lingustics, hence logic cannot be a product of language.

Once formalized we were able to develop logic (to some extent) into an abstract symbolic system which then could be applied non-linguistically. Conditions such as AND/OR/XOR/NOT/NAND/NOR/XNOR can be represented mathematically, thus removing any specific meaning from the logic itself.

I will however reword my original statment a bit, Language and Logic are synonymous.

If this were true then there would be no such thing as a logical fallacy.

One is the lack of zero. One is when I have the prescence of a thing.

It is also a lack of two. One is when I lack the presence of two things.

In order to form any type of conclusion based on logic we need to make a Given Absolute that is assumed to be true without any corroboration for this assumption except the system and conclusion of which it is this assumption is the absolute of.

It depends upon the argument; some rely upon assumptions and others do not.

Very paradoxical indeed. However This is all that exists in logic. And it is quite easy to show logics true nature with two sentences....

Godel already proved that all formal systems are incomplete.

~Raithere

 

[Frencheneesz]

"It depends upon the argument; some rely upon assumptions and others do not."

All arguments depend upon assumptions. For one, you assume that the other person speaks the same english you do...

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
All arguments depend upon assumptions. For one, you assume that the other person speaks the same english you do...

That examply really doesn't work, there is no need for another person in a logical argument. But I understand the point you are driving at. However, this is only the case if the assumptions are left undefined. Granted, most of the time there are indeed unspoken assumptions but it is not inevitable condition. Terms can be defined. Geometrical proofs are a good example.

~Raithere

 

[everprince]

whu?

say whut?

everprince

http://webking.tv the best site on the net

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Those creatures that had the ability to detect bodily harm survived to reproduce while those who couldn't, died.

True, however my question about pain entails the question "what was the first cause?"

No, but we had speech before logic. Logic is merely a system of formalized reason. Noting the behavior of other animals, we probably had some limited ability to reason before we developed language but only after we had language could we develop such a formal system.

No I don't think so, for language reflects logic. It manifests logic, it does not produce logic. How is it possible to have a language without logistic parameters.....

If this were true then there would be no such thing as a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy???

The idea of a fallacy is that it is illogical...

What are you talking about?

It is also a lack of two. One is when I lack the presence of two

True, however two is a the kin of one, hence it is includes the definition of one, but it can not define one, for without one it has no existence.

It depends upon the argument; some rely upon assumptions and others do not.

No ALL depend on assumptions, for the reason that if what my argument is based on is based on another argument, that is based on another argument , that is based on an assumption then by the logic "A then B then C", C is based on an assumption just as A is.

Godel already proved that all formal systems are incomplete.

So are you implying that I am wrong or what I have said is what Godel said?

That in actullity logic is.... illogical....and that very statement is illogical...hmmm.....

 

[Frencheneesz]

"Terms can be defined. Geometrical proofs are a good example. "

You need to assume things to define. Show me a geometric proof that doesn't assume something..

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Frencheneesz

So I see you HAVE chosen to ignore me...

Hahah, like a little child who covers his hears and shouts something repetitively in order to block out that which may not be in his favor......

..tis' a shame, but of course, you are not the first....

..too many people can't take the fact that they may be wrong....

..tis' truly a shame.....

..ignoring manifests ignorance....

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
True, however my question about pain entails the question "what was the first cause?"

First cause is a separate question. I don't see any intrinsic relation between it and the necessity of pain argument. As far as the first cause argument goes; the property of uncaused cause is an arbitrary assignment equally applicable to the Universe itself (or any other first cause) as it is to God.

No I don't think so, for language reflects logic. It manifests logic, it does not produce logic. How is it possible to have a language without logistic parameters.

Language began, or so it is theorized, as exclamatory utterances and/or simple object references. It did not spring, fully developed, from the mind of man complete with grammar and syntax. It is also theorized to have developed apace with the evolution of intellect.

A logical fallacy???
The idea of a fallacy is that it is illogical...
What are you talking about?

If language and logic were synonymous then you could not pose an illogical statement.
As to what logical fallacies are: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

No ALL depend on assumptions, for the reason that if what my argument is based on is based on another argument, that is based on another argument , that is based on an assumption then by the logic "A then B then C", C is based on an assumption just as A is.

But one can define a universe within which to frame the question. See my answer to Frencheneesz below.

So are you implying that I am wrong or what I have said is what Godel said?

Godel proved that all formal systems are incomplete; that is within any formal system a statement can be made that cannot be proven within the system. It's not quite what you were saying because the condition does not invalidate the system but its close. A linguistic example, for instance; "This statement is false" which defies resolution.

That in actullity logic is.... illogical....and that very statement is illogical...hmmm....

No, not illogical, merely incomplete. Think of it like basic arithmetic (addition and subtraction), what is does say is correct but there are question that cannot be answered within it.

Frencheneesz
You need to assume things to define. Show me a geometric proof that doesn't assume something.

I'm not going to go through an entire proof, I'll let you look that up for yourself. However, geometry first defines the 'universe' in which it operates. Thus with planar geometry, the universe is defined by the initial postulates. Within this universe proof without assumption becomes quite possible.

~Raithere

 

[everprince]

hi

hi, whoever thinks they are right could you please post your explanations as to what you were talking about onto a website, I would like to link to a site showing your explanations if I find they are correct,

if you make a site tell me where it is located,

my site is http://webking.tv

everprince

 

[Zero Mass]

There is a lot of really smart stuff at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
You should take a look at some of it.

ZERO MASS