/sci/ - Science & Math

yes

you are correct

Problem of induction.

>>5727813

I bet I can philosophize without using Formal Logic.

Especially if I've been drinking.

>>5727813
>Why the fuck is "logic" a "branch" of philosophy or logic is treated like some kind of tool?
Because logic can be used the wrong way via a false claim being logically consistent. Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's rooted in reality.

>>5727848
>Because logic can be used the wrong way via a false claim being logically consistent.
The fact that OP didn't know this already just goes to show that OP has never actually taken a course in Philosophy or Logic, because that's a day 1 PHIL 101 topic.

>>5727819
yea but it wouln't be correct.
"The world is a cupcake and sun is fuckass" sure doesn't use logic but then again isn't rational (see what i did there) so it doesn't hold any validity.

>>5727848

Bro do you even logic?

False premises do not nullify logic, they are merely false and serve to falsify any logical conclusions drawn from them. The logic can still be reasonable and rational regardless.

>"Somebody who wants to do a good job of measuring up a room for purposes of cutting and laying carpet needs to know some basic mathematics -- but mathematics is not the science of room measuring or carpet cutting. In mathematics one talks, about angles, lengths, areas, and so on, and one discusses the laws governing them : if this length is smaller than that one, then that angle must be bigger than this one, and so on. Walls and carpets are things that have lengths and areas, so knowing the general laws governing the latter is helpful when it comes to specific tasks such as cutting a roll of carpet in such a way as to minimize the number of cuts and amount of waste. Yet although knowing basic mathematics is essential in being able to measure carpets well, mathematics is not rightly seen as the science of carpet measuring. Rather, mathematics is an abstract science which gets applied to problems about carpet. While mathematics does indeed tell us deeply useful things about how to cut carpets, telling us these things is not essential to it : from the point of view of mathematics, it is enough that there be angles, lengths, areas considered in the abstract, it does not matter if there are no carpets or floors.

>Logic is often described as the study of reasoning. Knowing basic logic is indeed essential to being able to reason well -- yet it would be misleading to say that human reasoning is the primary subject matte of logic. Rather, logic stands to reasoning as mathematics stands to carpet cutting."

and

>"Just as beautiful points the way for aesthetics and good for ethics, so do words like like true for logic. All sciences have truth as their goal; but logic is also concerned with it in quite a different way: logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or heat. To discover truth is the tasks of all sciences; it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth."

also : >>5727848

>>5727853

Mehbeh.

We could have an argument about the Law of the Excluded Middle, though.

>>5727856
You DO know that you're strawmanning right now, and you've said nothing that contradicts what I posted in >>5727848, right...? Please try understanding a post before you just throw random arguments out.

>>5727813
Logic requires something to have reasonable bounds, for the reasons that identified in their basis are considered philosophy is that we cannot define bounds for them

Such is it considered of an illogical, or simply philosophical metric.

>Reason
>The impossibility of knowing everything
>Pick one
That is philosophy

Logic allows us to map our deductions and inductions in order not to fall into the trap of emotional pleas. Although it is used in philosophy, it is only philosophy when discussing the basis of epistemology, and then mostly in its limitations as an a priori pointer to truth.
Secondly, as an epistemological discussion, your opening statement creates its own fallacy, that of making a beggar of the question ( a fallacy you will learn about in logic class). Just because logic is a "branch" of philosophy - a categorization based on pedagogy, not ontology - doesn't affect its worth or utility.

tl:dr: Don't get hung up on categorizations; they are there to help you.

>>5727884
I'm going to counter argue you, just for the hell of it

Logic circumvents innate reactions and in place puts an intuitive deduction of indeterminant ends, by the nature of this to we subject our emotions to it, as emotion, in a simplicity of relation of saying, are a cause without force, and, again, as such do we submit our emotions to it; this being said, what is the nature of non-commital of open subject, it is unreasonable, it is not logic, but this is what we base logic on.

When used in philosophy it is given grounds to interpret itself, logic meets its bounds no matter what setting is being enjured, this is why it is popular, although able to be brought to disgrace by anything that can simplify the same matter in a more elegant form, such can and are the bounds of logic in the system being tested, or the epistemology, and does not find its limits in truth as the set is still not contained, and can be said to be undefined; this is the point many grumble and shake their heads and go do something else, OR! make a simple concise relation within the bounds of the system undermining the description (EG: "Well if x then why did y adgfghsv x), and reset the pointer, so in truth, the use of logic in a well orientated epistemology will have you redistributing systems without end and about as patternesq as prime numbers

>: Second
lol'd, yeah

There is no general form of validity, so there is no general logic which can be used. Any form of validity can be discovered valid by another form of validity. Its validity all the way down.

>>5727870

Who said this?

Its really dangerous to compare logic with math.

>>5727923
>Logic circumvents innate reactions and in place puts an intuitive deduction of indeterminant ends, by the nature of this to we subject our emotions to it, as emotion, in a simplicity of relation of saying, are a cause without force, and, again, as such do we submit our emotions to it; this being said, what is the nature of non-commital of open subject, it is unreasonable, it is not logic, but this is what we base logic on.

The point being that we base our logic on what we're feeling, and if you're not, you will not aquire logic.

I'm sure I have a battlegrounds of the feels list of movies somewhere here if anyone wants it

>>5727884
>tl;dr
What the hell arnt categorizations, there's a deeper reason you're getting hung up on em'
>mfw

>>5727928
>There is no general form of validity, so there is no general logic which can be used. Any form of validity can be discovered valid by another form of validity. Its validity all the way down.
>I'll take 'Recognize It' for 1200 Alex

>>5727928
>There is no general form of validity, so there is no general logic which can be used. Any form of validity can be discovered valid by another form of validity. Its validity all the way down.
>I'll take 'Recognize It' for 1200 Alex

pic

>When you're 'philosophizing', reasoning, whatever, you are doing it so logically.

Not really. There isn't even a sigle question philosophy has been able to answer. How can you have logic in something that does not produce meaningful true answers?

there isn't any point in studying logic in the context of philosophy.

Philosophy has not been of any utility to humanity whatsoever for hundreds of years.

The only philosophers that are of any utility are the ones who are really mathematicians.

>>5727966
Good Philo is the world as it is today, markets, valueing what value can give, pissing on your territory, Philo

>>5727966
>There isn't even a sigle question philosophy has been able to answer
Stop trolling or go learn some actual philosophy.

>>5727976
>>5727966

The interesting parts of philosophy lies often in the mistaken motivation to ask these questions.

>The only philosophers that are of any utility are the ones who are really mathematicians.

Mathematicians, while possessing a level of analytic rigor necessary for good philosophy, are often too autistic to pick up on the sublties in philosophy. So much retarded philosophy has been done by mathematicians (people who only know how to work within pre-defined rules).

>>5727976

>utility to humanity

Why SHOULD this be the most important thing.

Be careful, don't do any philosophizing to answer.

>>5727980
Philosophy asks questions, science answers them. Philosophy is, by definition, the study of fundamental questions that science can't currently answer.

>>5727923

>Went to lunch, had pasta.
Referring to >>5727884

By circumventing emotion, I meant emotional/instinctual/grammatical arguments where one gets from A to B not through inference, but through pleas to emotion/instinct. The basis of all fallacies are emotional/instinctual pleas or grammatical misdirections. Logic allows us to map our arguments from premise to conclusion.

On the epistemological side, at least for classical philosophic ideas, inference, as a feeling that reflects the rightness of the experience space - hierarchy, contiguousness, order in time, etc. - is a necessary basis for discussing truth, but by no means a sufficient basis. That's all I was saying.

>>5727928
>Any form of validity can be discovered valid by another form of validity.
So then how can we tell what's real and what's not?

>>5728112

Do you have any reason, except in extreme circumstances, to question that the world you perceive through your senses not the real world?

Logical validity... that's a different kettle of fish.

>>5728008
>That's all I was saying.
I simply cannot allow such stupidity in my fortress of ass made diamonds

>the rest
The instinct is something of previous basis for reaction to react in a specific and unvarying way, logic defies this as we know it, as it is in a 'higher' (hue) truth that our premise for it is reliant on those intuitive and, the point, instinctual interpretations to bring us to those places, so it is paradoxical to disregard them.

Now when you account for this plainly and constantly you, A: Do it to the extent of us bitching about it or B: constantly excel the B.S. scenario to realism by acknowledgement of relations that bring it forth, now, the real point, of philosophy, is to distinguish those boundries IE: Of Calculus's

>captcha related
At the end of the (adiec[?]) is I4D or IAD, this being indicative of a miscommunication of shapes which can be described in terms of forms (that or my screens shitty resolution is catching up with me, haha... and as it happens I did type it in wrong)

>>5727874
You disprove yourself.
How?
Look at your reply.
Without logic you couldn't make that reply, that assumption that conclusion.

All reasoning is logic and poor use of logic, you can't think outside of logic.

Apples are fruits
Apples are planets

Both are logical in the sense that the first sentence is true and the other is false.

>>5728218
>Both are logical in the sense that the first sentence is true and the other is false.
Only once you have applied logical rules.

Logic is a method of constructing and evaluating arguments, not a property inherent to any statement.

>>5728220
Can you give me an example of anything that can give knowledge, understanding, reason, science, math, philosophy, all that jazz, that doesn't use logic?

Am with OP in this one.

You do realize that any kind of thought you ever have is a result of neurons that behave like typical logic gates when it comes to reasoning, right?

I mean, wtf do you think reasoning is? some kind of mystical phenomenon?

>>5728229
MUH GAMBLIN SENSE!

>>5728229
Probability, Gravity, Women

Prove me wrong faggot!

>>5728229
What is Reason?
At it's base?

It's like a proof that has no proof, 'I have a reason to do something' Logically I will.... put it off till tommorow because Jeans are the same amount of dirty after 10 days or two years

>>5728244
>gravity
That doesn't even make sense
>women
lelelle
>probability
You use logic to understand what a probability is in the first place.
You use logic to define how to calculate probabilities.
You use logic to realize the result of the possible variations of different values.

>>5728231
Glad someone understands me.

>>5728229
>Can you give me an example of anything that can give knowledge, understanding, reason, science, math, philosophy, all that jazz, that doesn't use logic?
Are you seriously asking me to demonstrate a process that produces knowledge without using logic, in order to support my point that processes which produce knowledge use logic?

I mean, just look at the phrasing you yourself used - "use logic". That's exactly what I'm saying - logic is a thing you use, not a thing that you have.

>>5727813

I will disagree with you.

Logic is one method of reasoning, and thought processing -- usually the method with superior and predictable results, although the process may take much longer than other processes.

Cognition utilizes other kinds of reasoning which may be pseudo-logical, anti-logical, or non-logical, based on their comparison to a logical system as a reference.

Some kinds of effective reasoning that are non-logical are based on contextual process, where there may not even be a directly active thought process. Other kinds of cognitive process which may feel as if reasoning is occurring may actually only be the conscious monitor of a response to conditions -- a response that is reflexive or conditioned, but not necessarily following any kind of formal logical routine.

Because philosophers never produce anything of value => they need to take credit for preexisting stuff to feel good about themselves

>>5728264
Everyone keep saying that logic is just one way to reason.
What are the others?
You went on writing there are others type of reasoning but gave no examples, can you though?

>>5728279

That's a generalization that can be disproven easily. See the work of Empiricus on "Skepticism".

(very old text; easily found)

>>5728282
Prognostication.

>>5727813
Actually, most (if not all) known reasoning is based on heuristics - while they are driven by a small set of logic-machines themselves they are far from all-encompassing of the branch of "logic". Logical patterns have a great deal of variety and a logician studies them, whether they are immediately useful in practice (or even in theory) or not.

>>5728282

I gave them to you:

Pseudo-logical
Anti-logical
Non-logical

The example for non-logical reasoning was provided.

A pseudo-logical process would be "That woman hates me, she must hate all men."

An anti-logical process would be, "Since A=B, and B=C, then A !=C."

There are other kinds of reasoning. You actually use them all the time. Logic is very concrete and easily visualizd -- the others you have to see them as ground for figure, if you know what I mean.

>>5728287

I've seen several definitions of heuristics, so would you please describe your definition so we do not wind up having an argument over an agreement?

I agree that "logic" is a construct of man to replicate some features of cognition that have a more easily identifiable process that is deterministic.

I can imagine that you have some experience in studying logic, more than I do, and there are situations where logical conventions do not work and the process becomes non-deterministic. In these situations, the reasoning methods that are not orthdoxically logical become evident and principally important. I would imagine some types of game theory would rely on non-logical methods.

>>5728289

Just to clarify "contextual process": My wife will sometimes be in a situation where she tells me "Let's get the hell out of here, now." I ask her what for and she says "I don't know." After we leave we may find out later a fight broke out, or something goofy. Some aspect of her perception is probably picking up a context in which there may be imminent violence. So she reacts to the perception of the feeling provided to her. I would have otherwise stood there and gotten hit in the head by a folding metal chair. That kind of thing. The consciousness is aware of a signal from other aspects of perception, but there is no foremost logical reasoning process going on. Which is why some people (and by that, I mean women) may get mad at you for no apparent reason, and they don't know why either.

>>5727813
there are multiple types of reasoning
a few example

narrative: i saged the thread because op was a faggot. i was late from work because the faggot busdriver drove slowly

statistical: if you get bitten by an XY snake, you have 80% chance of dieing. if you lurk on >>>/b/ you have 99% chance of finding shitty threads

deductive-nomological: it's what you call logical basically

Since you're on the subject.
How many formal logic languages are there?

The v,^,¬,->,<-,<-> syntax is the standard, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

These symbols can't describe everything?

>>5728294
Heuristics are just the way neural nets work (at least as we understand them now) - they don't comprise everything, they are like circuits in a way.

The point I was getting at is that the brain is built of machines that operate along a specific set of principles, like a computer is built with transistors. Transistor-logic is no more all-encompassing of the field of logic than a heuristic network is, yet by understanding transistors we can make computers (while running on heuristics) and by understanding heuristics we can make AI (running on transistors). There are many more logical patterns that are already known than those needed for either of the aforementioned systems and there are no doubt an infinite number waiting to be discovered. A logician looks for those logical patterns and attempts to understand them so they can be utilized, but the ability to discover a potentially infinite set of patterns from a finite set does not make the finite set all-encompassing.

>>5728322
>muh logic

>>5728322
>symbols
>describing everything
What are you, a mathematician?

>>5728322
>no ∈ symbol
Logic status: [DROPPED]

>>5728339

It's got to be in there.
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~david/cs245/cs-firstorder.pdf

>>5728323

Thanks for the definition, which is pretty definitive, I might add, since it has a physical manifestation.

I think the only thing I can add to your viewpoint, before I head off from work, is that cognition will be influenced by non-brain originated agencies. One example is modification of "behavior" as produced from cognition due to the processing of the hormonal messaging system, as an example, which is more primitive, and harder to predict the effect of, than the newer neural system. There are also behaviors which occur before, or in spite of, neural process, which are motivated by chemical messaging systems. All the effects of these systems have yet to be understood in many ways. For instance, the humeral effects on various brain structures like the hypothalamus, pineal gland, and so forth. The regulation of not just thought process but sleep cycle, hunger, and so forth.

I think the advantage of the logical system based on neural networking of some kind is obvious: A consistent and mostly deterministic reference by which the influence of the "other systems" can be detected and compared to. And also the reliability of the logical convention based on the reliability of the network itself.

The seduction is the extent to which the brain operates outside a neural net model, which is yet to be fully revealed.

Thanks for the convo, /sci. At least I got something useful done today.

N for North
E for Eddard
D for Dead

Logical proof that GURM is shit tier writer.

>>5728343
it should, but it isn't.
Wikipedia confirmed for nigger

>>5728339
>"muh foundations"
>This expression indicates a set theorist's confusion and lack of understanding. When confronted with something he can not understand or respond to, set theorists mumble "Muh Foundations" or "Muh Foundations of Mathematics." This is usually followed by ramblings about large cardinals and weak principles of determinacy.

>>5728356
but how do you explain that it's not there?
Mathematics are broken people, go home.

>>5728259
>probability
>it only exists by our determination

CONSCIOUSNESS FAG OVER HERE GUYS

>Gravity
A: Exactly
B: Theyr like black holes with a buttplug in'm
Who's to say that BH's arnt the norm and matter is a residual of who the dick knows what

>Women
They use our instinct as relative to them to give all of those things

Mate yur Check I did, small long limbed green children we will now have.

Srs tho, srs

>>5728339
am seriously interested, why isnt the symbol there?

>>5728370

If I had self-awareness I would be conscious.

>>5728364
∈ is not a logical symbol, it's a set theoretical symbol.

>>5728382
I thought they were the same.
Am too smart for this shit.

>>5728373
Self Aware that the only thing maintaining you was the world around you.... and then?... accepting it?... And then.... being unconscious?

Still, this is >that you were ever conscious in the first place

>>5728322
they can't describe love

>>5728444
>mfw they can
r^e->l


r=romantic,e=emotion, l=love

QED

>>5728322
It can't describe that it describes everything.

Explain this faggotry.
How proposition and conclusion can be true in the first three states?

>>5728576
correction.
*how the fuck the first two states are true but the third isn't?

>>5728576
P exists within Q, P therefore Q. If Q is false then P cannot be true.

>>5728576
Also if Q and P are both false, then the statement resolves to true. Which is exactly what the table says only wordier.

>>5728577
True premises cannot logically entails false conclusions.

>>5728614
but false premises can entail true?

>>5728408

I don't think I was.

Problem of induction

>>5728576
let s = p -> q

The important thing to note is that s is a statement about the relationship between p and q. Read s as "if p is true, then I assert that q is also true". When p is false we're not making any (false) assertions about the relationship between p and q so you consider the statement as true by default.

>>5728588
I don't get this argument. What do the sets P and Q represent?

>>5728873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition#Simple_proof_using_Venn_diagrams

I had to read Sophie's World in high school. it killed philosophy for me.

>>5727873
>We could have an argument about the Law of the Excluded Middle, though.
You're on. The Law of the Excluded Middle is true.
>pic related

>>5728955
There's no such thing as an interpretable absolute then

Existance says otherwise
>pic related

>>5728576
I'll use a fucking example because everybody he is a retarded faggot.

Okay, so P is "you having sex with your girlfriend" and Q is "you shitting on your girlfriend's chest". Because you're into that sort of thing, being a faggot. (Of course, you don't have a girlfriend, but we're being hypothetical here.)

So, let's look at these scenarios. If you don't have sex with your girlfriend nor shit on her chest, then sure, p->q. You're not having sex, you're not shitting. Makes sense.

Also, if you're not having sex with your girlfriend but you DO shit on her chest, that's possible, too. Let's say that you're really horny but your girlfriend is sleeping and thus you can't have sex. This scenario is called "r", okay? To relieve yourself of this horniness, you take a dump on her chest. Thus, r->q. So p->q is still true if p didn't happen but q did.

Let's skip down to the bottom- it's common sense. You have sex -> you shit on her chest. No fucking dip; p->q. But the third possibility makes no sense. If you DO have sex with your girlfriend- p is true- but you DON'T shit on her chest, then it makes NO FUCKING SENSE. Comprende? Because p->q, and EVERY TIME you have sex (that is, when p is true, incase you're blind) you MUST shit on her chest. SO THERE'S NO WAY THIS COULD HAPPEN. Thus, if p but not q- if having sex but no shitting- then P->Q IS WRONG.

QED, motherfucker.

>>5727873
That's a semantic argument. Everything you can say in classical logic can be translated to intuitionistic logic using double-negation translation.

>>5728979
what if i shit on her mouth?
Does that make sense?

>>5729341
That's a new variable

>>5728979
That's wrong.
If i dont P(sex) and i don't Q(shit) then there is no proof/truth.
The relationship is false.

>>5729348
No then there is nothing interupting

>>5729348
> >>5729358
As in, when the system brings the set up its dependant on... just gunna take a moment to writhe over our shit education system... what the base set is determining, if the baseset is left freelance so to speak, the -> will occur, and the later is at the determinant of the earlier

>>5729358
u don't know logic

>>5728979
ok but why can't I sex without shitting?

>>5729386
You do it with a prolapse intestine your last wife cut your dong off because you kept jerking off using her favorite fan.

>Muh G Spot

read logicomix

Excuse me for jumping in late.

Logic is not reasoning. Reason can be thought of like something that compels you, an 'argument' if you will. Logic is the formalization of reasons. In formalizing, we don't care about the content of a reason, like mathematics not caring about what a certain number is counting.

Its not so much that you are always logical, but more so that you always have compelling reasons to behave, and sitting back and appreciating those reasons is logic. Generalizing the reasons we already acknowledge is what logic is all about.

>>5728979

You are breezing through this too much.

P and Q are propositions. In symbolic logic its typically understood that a proposition is true when the content of the proposition corresponds to the world. For example the proposition 'couple having sex' either matches with the world or it doesnt.

From there we build up with notions like 'and' and 'or' and 'implies' and 'not'.

But this is just modern mathematical logic. The notion of 'implies' is pretty old and has been under various interpretations.

>>5727813
>You cannot have reasoning without logic
Yes, you can, and you do.
> logic IS reasoning
No it is not. Reasoning can be (and usually is) illogical.
> logic is the base of everything
Logic is not the base of anything. Logic is the result of training in logical procedures.
Lrn2Logic

>>5729408
>the notion is old
What would you use instead?

>>5729408
I think it is pretty sold.
If x is true then for sure y is true too.
y might also be true if x isn't, but IF x IS true then y must be too.

>>5729897
solid*

Logic was formalized and studied by philosophers long after philosophy matured as a discipline; before you can even practice logic, you have to partake in some vulgar reasoning and come up with axioms and general notions to base it on -- two things which, for the ancients at least, fell into the purview of philosophy.

Also: it has to be understood that logic is just formalizing and understanding processes which already take place. Heraclitus may have been thinking logically, but he wasn't using logic; he wasn't taking part in a systemic study of his own thought processes.

It's like saying 'Why the fuck is 'mechanics' a 'branch' of science or mechanics is treated like some kind of tool?

You cannot move without mechanics, mechanics IS movement, mechanics is the base of everything, the moving self.

When you're collecting data, doing calculations, whatever, you are doing it so mechanically."

It's conflating the field of study with its subject matter, in a sense.

>>5729348
If you don't P and you don't Q, you aren't sexing or shitting, but that's still consistent with the established premise p>q.

>>5728955

I wanted true.

But anyway.

So you're claim it that the LEM is true.

I will take the contrary position that it is also false.

And since the negation of LEM would be that a statement can be both true and false, my position is consistent.

>>5729969
>So you're claim it that the LEM is true.
>I will take the contrary position that it is also false.
By the law of noncontradiction these can't be both true.
>And since the negation of LEM would be that a statement can be both true and false, my position is consistent.
False. It says it can be neither true nor false. You wanted the negation of noncontradiction.

lrn2logic

>>5729990

Your statement is not false, therefore your statement is not true.

Thanks for playing drunken philosophy.

Protip: This 'argument' started with me saying:

I bet I can philosophize without using Formal Logic.

Especially if I've been drinking.

>>5730017

Secure tripcodes are for Jerks.

>>5730017
>without formal logic
How about without logic?

>>5730053

That's going to depend on how much I've had to drink.

Check this math:

~(p ^ ~p) <-> (p v ~p)

Look Kosher??

>>5730058
>

>>5730058
not(wet_floor AND not_wet_floor) equals (wet_floor OR not_wet_floor)

Whats your point?

>>5730098

Just trying to figure out why... In my drunken stupor, I confused the law of excluded middle with the law of non-contradiction.

I have two theories:

1) Secure Tripcodes are for Jerks.
2) They are (by DeMorgan's Law) equivalent.

the two theories may not be mutually exclusive.

>>5727813
How do you decide which inference rules to use?

>inb3 hurfdurf it's an innate ability GOD instilled in all of us

>>5730119

That is a tricky question to answer.

Aristotle's Syllogisms were assumed to be valid for over 2200 years, until Russell &c showed that a couple of them are invalid. And then of course there is the whole Incompleteness brouhaha.

>>5730119
can't inb5 the truth

>>5730125
Cantor was a bit looney.
I don't take looney people seriously.

I don't take Cantor seriously.

>>5727813
YOU ARE FUCKING MORON
logic is a tool, it's a tool for validity. There is more to thinking than just that. Logic is a limited tool in reasoning, that's why it only considered a branch.

>>5730131
Get out of here, finitist scum.

>>5730126
Which ones were invalid?

>>5730133
Listen here you dipshit.
Your brain can reason only using neurons as logic circuites, gates like AND, OR.

No matter how magical you think your thoughts are at heart they are nothing more than simple logic in a massively parallel effect, which gives you the illusion of "hur durr we use 10% of our BRIANS".

Plebe.

>>5730175
this.
Am totally not a samefag

>>5730175

And yet my brain constantly outputs wrong answers.

>>5730227
Only because inefficiency of variables.
It's like feeding logic gates with incomplete data= wrong answers.

I thought that was implied, if you couldn't grasp it in the first place then you're either a woman or a female.

>>5730370

Copypasta.

Neurons have a integrative function similar to logic gates in computers, although immensely more complex. A neuron receives a range of input signals through its dendrites, integrates them, and then may or may not “fire”, depending on the type and frequency of the input signals. The firing of a neuron propogates signals to other neurons, and is generally an all or nothing process; the inputs must excite the neuron beyond a certain threshold for it to fire. The input signal depends on whether the connecting synapse is strong or weak, excitatory or inhibitory. A neuron with two inputs can act in several different modes, depending on the types and strengths of its inputs.


I'll refrain from calling you a cunt.

>>5729897

Well okay. But what does this english 'if... then...' statement mean? In symbolic logic we have the material conditional, but there are lots of different kinds of conditionals (counterfactual, subjective...). 'if... then...' in itself is ambiguous.

>>5730098

iff is not the same as equals. Be careful.

>>5730403

If .. then.. is a construction that is not much used in ordinary conversation.

A lot of times when people say 'If so an so"

they actually mean 'only if'

Logic is how we think its the way human minds are built very logically logic is the very basis of all other schools of thought and philosophy

>>5730408

Sure. But that doesnt mean there is something common to all instances of someone saying 'if' or 'only if' or 'if so and so'.

Words and phrases of similar grammar resemble each other with no similarity in function. There isnt a single form of implication.

>>5730414

Agreed.

>>5727813

Would you accept the claim that it is because Aristotle wrote a book called Logic?

>>5730425

Cool.

So on that note, as much as I love logic, it seems extremely mistaken to try and formalize. You can't make a general claim about validity. Only validity in certain instances.

>>5730433

You mean Academic featherbedding by Philosophy professors?

>>5730433
Aristotle wrote books? Lol, what a nerd.

Logic
Heuristic
What else is there?

>>5730383
>still not understanding

>>5730370
Everyone on /sci/ is female. Science is a girl thing.

What's the logic of dubs?

>>5730491
we don't know, ask >>>/lounge/

>>5730468

If it makes you feel better about yourself to think this, please do.

A guitar is very similar to a banjo.
Except of course, It isn't one.

>>5730467

Intuition.

>>5730501
>>5730383
The fact is that am well versed in neuroscience, if you even knew what half the words mean from that pasta you wouldn't post it.

Let me simply cause it seems that you think whoever disagrees with you is just trying to boost his ego and doesn't know anything.

Sure, neurons aren't as discrete as computer logic gates.
You are implying that am trying to persuade you they are the same thing.

Ok, i'll be nice from now on.
So let me rephrase.
Neurons and logic circuits work the same way as in they operate and 'conclude' using their logical functions.
If you put insufficient data to a person, neurons will compute what they have and produce an erroneous answer.

If you put insufficient data to a computer, the transistors will compute what they have, they might result in error message or whatever.
No one said banjo is a guitar am saying they both make music and they both have strings.

>>5730504
intuitition IS heuristic

>>5730383
Further more.
There have been computers designed to act heuristically rather than bruteforcing like typical chess programs calculating million moves.
Just being friendly over here.

>>5730550
>computers designed to act heuristically
This.
Computers will at some point surpass human thinking, to say that human reasoning is beyond logic is nonsense.

>>5730557

It's possible. But it's also possible that in order to do what a human brain does, the computer will have to be isomorphic to the human brain.

>>5730585
>isomorphic
How sure are you about this?

>>5730585
> only humans can be intelligent
> only 100Hz parallel processing neural nets with 90% of operations taken up by the OS, which evolved through random mutations, and can throw rocks and learn about politics but can't even follow a ten-step logic chain without external storage, can be intelligent.

Your human exceptionalism is showing.

>>5730692

Did I insult a friend of yours?

>>5730585
>it's also possible
Well pretty much anything is possible, is there actually any reason to think this is true?

>>5730470
>filename

>>5730383
This, this is really cool
It says how no matter what input your taking and reinterating, your answer is invalid on the proposition of your not taking >>5728576 p to its extent, but then by extension could >>5728576 be considered invalid by the sake of q can be 1!, which, although abscure, is the basis of how science is furthered

>>5729925
>You cannot move without mechanics, mechanics IS movement, mechanics is the base of everything, the moving self.
I'm going to counter
I'm going to counter argue you: is a machine parts, the machine is a not a machine without said parts, by the exclusion of a part is a mechanic debilitated; now, the part itself, being a mechanical, is limited to this same sentiment, as you continue along you reach zenos paradox, as such is your sentiment false in the aspect of a machine, being only its parts, is never complete, and as such, iniquitous("unjust", Cit. Thesaurus), and impossible.

>>5730106
>DeMorgan's Law
nice, well played

>>5730529
> >>5730504
So as a neuro fag how would you quantify intuition mm?

>>5730829
see:
>>5730550

>>5730106
In intuitionistic logic, not all of the cases of DeMorgan's Law are valid, and these statements are not equivalent. The first is a tautology, and the second is not.

>>5730969
Or I should say: Non-contradiction is a tautology in that logic; the excluded middle is not.

>>5730965
>2nd statement of ^
Yeah but the point being it does both, which is... well how it achieves the means it does

>>5730969
>Heuristic-tautology
>>5730974
Elaborate?

>picture always related

>>5730998
Intuitionistic logic doesn't admit the excluded middle as an axiom, and there's no way to prove it from the axioms and inference rules it does use. In particular, truth tables are not a valid way to prove anything in intuitionistic logic. They are based on the excluded middle.

You can prove that you can't prove the excluded middle by creating a model of the logic where you assign every proposition one of three truth values. Then you draw up truth tables for the logical operators and show that the inference rules will only prove statements with the first truth value. And then you show that the excluded middle doesn't always have this truth value.

>>5731028
>
Could you say that's a learned thing? I mean sure 2 eyes can impart a degree of such an understanding but I'm doubtful thats the prelapse of it's incursion, our brain could be said to be recognizing the input as the excluded middle being the only thing, and undermine the basis of the term.

>
Yeah but the table would also be indicative of putting the rest of the model into use, the excluded middle has that truth to the extent of that model, of 3 interdefiners, you could say, would be altruistic, and that the excluded middle is the same, my god the way we traditionally use numbers is on that basis!

>>5731053
>mfw

>mfw enjoying this thread
bump4discussion

>>5730175
I never said anything about magical thinking, you stupid fucking loser. I stated that logic was solely system of validation AND there is more to conscious than just that. Neurons are not logic gates:

1. They are not digital. They don't turn on/off--they fire after a threshold is breached. (i.e. analog input with digital output)
2. There are no unique brain states to any kind of logical argument. (i.e. logical statements you make are never exactly the same neurons firing the same way)
3. The statement of saying the mind is logical is only a nod that the mind rationalizes from given stimuli--it's not wholly Logic itself.

Get bent.

>>5732148
>#3
"I'll take Intuition for 600 Alex"

Could immulizing something be considered logical?
>mfw

>>5727813

If the brain is only logical, or can only think in logical conclusive ways, then paradoxes shouldn't exist, nor value judgments either; nor should it even be possible for a person to think illogical, because that would go against its very nature.

...and yet there you are, a complete dumbass going against all the nature you claim.

>>5732154
How about you take a dick up the ass instead, or least make a better refutation, rather than trying to coax on the bet that I might extrapolate wrongly about your quip on intuition.

Either make a point, or live the rest of your life as insignificant, and being plain wrong.

My God this is a long thread about nothing.

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but to answer OP's question, it's because the "logic" branch of philosophy is where you learn the LANGUAGE of philosophy. It's where you learn why different arguments are fallacious, and how to recognize them in a discussion; it's where you learn the symbols used when trying to prove something; it's where you learn how to differentiate between philosophy and sophistry.

Simple question, simple answer. The fuck is wrong with you people?

>>5732189
>Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet...
It's been mention several times already, logic is a system of validation. The philosophy of logic is about understanding how and why a conclusion is valid--and not so much about fallaciousness--from a given set of premises. Logic is a codification of validity, not wholly a system of reasoning.

You're looking at it backwards.

3/10, at least you tried

>>5732235
This is why philosophy questions shouldn't be posted on /sci/, nobody here knows what the fuck they're talking about.

"Philosophy of logic"? What a load of horseshit. You use logic by defining axioms, and then applying them to examine the truth value of an idea. There's no philosophy in that. What you should be talking about instead is the logic of philosophy. It's analogous to talking about the grammar of a language. Logic is the set of rules used to discuss philosophy.

If it's not logical, it's sophistry. It's a waste of time.

Hello, I am now using logic in order to define this message. Also: America.

>>5732248
>You use logic by defining axioms, and then applying them to examine the truth value of an idea.

That's called a system of validation, you dolt.

>There's no philosophy in that.

Wrong, and contradictory to your previous statement, 'VALUE of an idea'. That has a lot do with philosophy--asking about the things we value most, and inquiring about the nature of that endeavor.

>What you should be talking about instead is the logic of philosophy.

Philosophy isn't as rigid as you may allude, it's difficult enough as it is to define philosophy let alone say there is a sole logic to it all. (That's not to dismiss the reasoning that goes with philosophy.)

>Logic is the set of rules used to discuss philosophy.

No it's not retard. It's a tool used by philosophy to make an argument, but it is not the philosophizing itself. 'The map is not the territory'

If you represent /sci/ in some way, a good sample of most anons who frequent /sci/, then /sci/ is full of stupid people and therefore stupid. (logic!)

New to logic here.
Guys, all i need to know is the five main logic connectives to do anything, right?
Or do i need to learn more stuff?

Can i argue/prove/etc doing with only the basic symbols?

>>5730829

Intuition is not necessarily illogical. It may however be unexplainable on a conscious level.

>>5732291

If you're going to Logic, pick up The Logic Book from piratebay. It's good stuff.

I haven't done symbolic logic in quite some time, but you will want to know these to start off with:

If (symbolized with ->) [implication]
And (symbolized with ^ or &) [conjunction]
Or (symbolized with V or ||) [disjunction]
If and only if (symbolized with <-> and written as iff) [equivalence]
Not (symbolized with ~ or ¬) [negation]

You'll eventually learn funkier symbols like universal and existential quantifications, tautology and it gets to be its own language.

>>5732326
I see, thanks anon.
One more question, how often/easily/practically can you use these symbols?

>>5727813
Logic is a branch of maths.

>>5732382
Logic is a branch of logic. As is math.

>>5730969

Then clearly it was option 1

>>5732189
>differentiate between philosophy and sophistry

Easy.

Sophistry is when people disagree with me.

>>5732291
No

>>5732356
Not often nor practical in daily informal setting

>>5732522
Do you ever use it, if yes for what?

Boolean logic
Modern logic
Quantifier logic
Classical logic
Multi-valued logic
Quantum logic
Formal logic
Non-classical logic
Sentential logic
Fuzzy logic
Predicate logic
Syllogistic logic
Informal logic
Propositional logic Symbolic logic

OP, if by logic you mean all the above, then yes, logic can describe everything.

>>5732546

Parts of it get used in computer science, other parts get used in mathematics, still other parts get watered down and used in law.

>>5732559
You mindlessly copypasted this list without realizing that some of them are synonyms.

>>5727813
Because philosophy is a superset of pure mathematical logic.

>>5732609

>>5732611

>infantile cartoon

>>5732611
sure they act like retards but still they are right.

>>5732570
>synonyms
You mindlessly posted your post without realizing some of them are subsets of others but no synonyms.

>>5732617


define 'know'

>>5732623
know as in scientific rigor.

>>5732627

I see.
Do you know with that sort of rigor that things like the cosmological principle are true, or do just assume them?

>>5732634
We observe and validate only what we can validate.

What's valid and what's not is only limited to our observation and the interpretation of our observation.

Consequently we can never validate anything absolutely cause that would violate the interpretation principle.

>>5732647
And what's the interpretation principle?

>>5732647

So all knowledge is provisional, in a sense.

>>5732650
Simple.
The interpretation principle is that it is an interpretation.


The mind isn't a microscope where you can look at reality as it is.
It's a modeling, translating, interpretative, simulating, pattern seeking system.

This is a profound and very basic axiom of scientific method, you don't even need philosophy.

>>5732655

Except.
There is no one unified, immutable scientific method handed down from on high, carved on tablets.

Science is a human endeavor. What counts as proper science changes over time.

I have no problem in people shitting on philosophy... but I find it laughable when they end up doing it themselves.

>>5732663
>>5732663
>There is no one unified, immutable scientific method handed down from on high, carved on tablets.
>Science is a human endeavor. What counts as proper science changes over time.

Absolutely not.
It's not about how you perceive science.
No matter how perfect a brain or a system, that said system is always going to interpret on its own way.
Scientific rigor is limited to the interpretation.
This isn't a debate, this the only consequent.

>I find it laughable when they end up doing it themselves.
Irony.

Gödel was a convinced theist. He rejected the notion of others like his friend Albert Einstein that God was impersonal.

He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known facts."
>"If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."

>ahhahahafaggot_laughingwhores.png

>>5732692
What was the reaction of Bertrand Russel to incompleteness theorem?

>>5732705
>Russel: lel sauce? faggot theist dualist, saged reported called the royal guard

>>5732716
>royal guard
sides are twisting the magnetic poles of earth out of the galaxy

>>5732705
He was speechless.

>>5732173
You should take a lesson in SKITZ
But srsly
>
You said it yourself, I was depening the extent with internet sarcasm on it not even being a double jepordeh quexion, the point you were making is that you simply cannot account for all input

>
that's standard issue, all point not being indicative of eachother

>>5732275
ITT: Anon argues the OP's BS

>That's called a system of validation, you dolt.
It's a system of distribution, validation never occurs

>Wrong, and contradictory to your previous statement, 'VALUE of an idea'. That has a lot do with philosophy--asking about the things we value most, and inquiring about the nature of that endeavor.
Fucking wth is philosophy anyway: 'Love of Wisdom': Not logic, just the extent of w/e modern endevour

>^

>
>The territory isnt made of maps
>
>Poster with LeSKItZ

>>5732314
>Typical /sci/ response: Seriously what the hell are you even trying to say there

"Explaining intuition unintuitively", reacting with the degree of your sentient composure with your instinctual resonance

gtfo /w conciousness, it's popsci

>>5732677
>CounterArguement!
Why not so?
You say in your own way that we are the system we are
We interpret the variety of what we can determine bounds of, scientific rigor is limited to no such thing, by epitomologese have we gained the extent of saying "something I can look at cant be used as it's immediate interpretation", and this is really only an extension of realism, as opposed to reallity, which science likes to think it's doing, but these days its subject to mainstream religion more than ever.
This is always a debate, that is the consequence.

>
>CounterArguement!

>>5734292
'input'? What the fuck are you babbling about, retard?

>>5734528
>It's a system of distribution, validation never occurs
can't into 'conclusion necessarily follows the premises'?

>>5734672
Nope
Not at all, existance defies the 2nd Law of T.D. in information/by interpretation

>>5734664
> >>5734672
> >>5734695

>>5734695
YOSH!

Because "Philosophy" is a dead-end that doesn't understand that statistics supercedes logic. This is why Poppler was the last true philosopher, and every "philosopher" after that is just a living art installation rather than practicing a useful discipline.

>>5727848
DAMN THOSE SOPHISTS. WHERE IS AN HONEST MAN?

>>5728231
>herp derp neurons

but why?

>>5734978
>reasoning
>cells regrouping in extended family units enough after being seperated
>this is a typical logic gate
>

>>5734963

I'm going to say Einstein was the last true philosopher.

ITT: pseudo-intellectual high schoolers abuse the word "logic" without knowing what it means

Please take a class on formal logic.

>>5735659

Hey buddy! I got through Logic 520, but I still got non--contradiction and excluded middle confused ITT.
But in my own defense. I'd been drinking.

Bye soon.

>>5735668
>Logic 520

Do you expect me to know your school? The fact that you have to hind behind cryptic course numbers instead of revealing your actual knowledge (or lack thereof) tells us that you're most likely fitting the description prsented in >>5735659

>>5735671
*to hide
*presented

>>5735671
>Looks like
>>5735659

>>5735650
Well yeah, he kinda gave science an arrow to the knee by limiting reletivity to energys, but no doubt only for the sake of science |muh second cummanment|

>>5735671

>feeling superior by posting on 4chan

shiggity diggity

So, the thread as it is, and logic as it is, how do we 'keep on topic', dont the constants say that there's no such thing as?

>>5737353
>by not mentioning my penis size to you I have stayed on topic
>the last digit of my post in "

So where did the off topic happen eh?

>>5727813
>You cannot have reasoning without logic, logic IS reasoning, logic is the base of everything, the thinking itself.
Sure you can.

Barnacle poop face turtle mcduck therefore jumanji bill gates arapaho on tuesday night morning.

>>5727870
this is good shit... what's it from?

>>5738430
sounds reasonable

>>5738538
even expansive

any heteros wanna give it a shot?

>>5739571
Found it.

Logic: The Laws of Truth
by Nicolas J. J. Smith

>>5737353
bump

>>5738538
>thinking irrational sounds rational
This is what you're saying.

>>5740120

Or is it?

>>5740128
yes it is.
How? like this:
The poster you replied stated x, you logically evaluated his statement, and it was logically True to you, and you accepted it, if it was False to you, you wouldln't.


Though, what you two can't understand is that jibberish statements like he made, aren't illogical, they are logical but have false value to your current interpretation of reality.

That is to say, the first statement is logical, but has a FALSE value.
You are claiming that the first statement is illogical, but most people, as you, use the world "illogical" in a wrong way.
You can't use the word "theory" the same as you use it in scientific context and the same as you in casual.

>>5740133
But no! That depends on context of recognition! The fact that you are distributing the attributes of the element in question to only use or behavior is not true of it's existing, it's not illogical, it's simple observation!

>>5740120
>>5740133

Reason may utilize logic, but that doesn't necessarily mean logic is rationale. Take for example:

All anons are fags
OP is an anon
Therefore OP is a fag

Logically that's is tight. By it's logic it's correct. However, it's also unreasonable, it's irrational. How? Because the reasoning that make the system of validation work, the logic, is disregarded. This means that it's not Logic that is the Reasoning itself, but rather something Reasoning uses.(Aristotle said this as well)

So it is possible to have irrational things be logical.

>>5740239
>>5740154
>>5740133
>>5740120


My favorite example of something that is logical but absurd is:

"There exists something such that if it is white, then it is a unicorn."

>>>/g/33605289

/g/ in charge of logic

>>5740272
what do you mean by logical?

logic can discriminate between absurd arguments, such as yours, and valid arguments

>>5740308

It is a true statement, merely because of the logical structure.

>>5740308
Logic can't discriminate if all the parts are working logically--that's the trap of logic. What makes logic work is the justification of it's validity. That reasoning is something beyond logic. This why logic is considered a tool of reasoning.

>>5740316
>>5740239

Deductively it is true.
I can say flowers are meteors, therefore flowers are from out of space.

There lies your flaw.
Everything is logical if you accept the premises as true.

Problem is that unicorns don't really correspond to observation.
Therefore inductively the value of that logical evaluation is False.

>>5740332

It is, as an empirical matter.
True.

A black thing exists that is not a unicorn.

etc.

but it is still absurd.

>>5727813

hell no!!

is beauty logical?
is logic beautiful?
have you ever heard of "Many-valued logic"?

look it up, faggot.

>>5740316
but it isn't. you have failed to understand logic and made a schoolboy error

A => B is not the same as B => A

oh wait, you are trolling

>>5740339
>is beauty logical
Yes.
Beauty in people is healthy, symmetrical faces and bodies.

>>5740316
Nope.

>>5740272
Why do you think this statement is true?

>>5740324
It can discriminate between good and bad argument, not good and bad premises.

Logic has to function in a universe where unicorns exist, as well as our own.

>>5740342

no, beauty and logic are incommensurable values. just because many people find symmetry attractive, that doesn't make them equal.

furthermore, google "Gödel's incompleteness theorem":
'Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.'

Logic sucks when it comes to a certain level of complexity.

>do you even philosoph?

>>5740349
An argument is reason giving. Reasoning is something above and beyond the control of logic. Even a bad argument can be logical. Logic can't distinguish between a bad argument and a good one. It can only show validity, and distinguish if something is necessarily true or not.

Question: What makes a premises true?
Hint: It's not Logic.

>>5740332
>Flowers=Meteors
Breaking up in the atmosphere, more truly breaking the atmosphere

Immagine that! If life didnt evolve beside plants then the whole planet would go up in a blaze eventually!

>>5740370
>What makes a premises true?
I'll bite; Bias.
>tfw

>>5740547
>Bias.
no. it's justification

>>5740354
>Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Both theorems are stated in the language of logic.

>>5740561
How can we justify otherwise then? You are merely a universal posture, and by the fact of things expressing the way they could think they are, is indicative of
A: Such being true to their extent (All forms of me do not exist), and we are synonymous with nature across the board, or
B: We hold the keys of unjustification, which in turn leads to the premise that it is only bias that depicts what interpretation we take, and by taking one are we fufilling our 'quota' of distribution of being unjustified

Which leads me to the point of when being entirely unjustified in an action, are you the most justified(justification=means/basis) in the extent of you are acting by no premise that is your own, not to say that you are apart from it, the universe, but subjecting yourself to it's bounds, which to it, simply by empirical evidence, is/are unjustified.

So, what is logic? It's a shrouded epiphany of not fully undefined, and as such illogical; and a fallacy? In the nature of true logic, an only partial subjection.

>yfw

>>5727813
Logic is simply a tool we use to prove our claims, which can be true or false. It eliminates ambiguity in language.

If I were to say to you, if the sidewalk is wet, then it must be raining. Certainly if the sidewalk is wet then yes, it can be raining. But what if the sidewalk is wet from a sprinkler?

But what if I said if it is not raining, then the sidewalk is not wet. I am saying the same as I had just previously.

Logic IS a tool. We "use" it to show truthfulness. Just like mathematics is the laws of numbers, logic is the laws of reasoning.

>>5740873
oh wait OP is clearly troll

3/10 you got me to reply

logic is not merely a tool, and it is every bit as much a part of the fabric of mathematics as another "branch" of math, which is to say, a different topos than the one over sets where we usually think of math to reside. learn to homotopy theory, learn to voevodsky you fucking ignorant faggots.

>>5740886
SUGGEST READING MATERIAL YOU ASPIE

>>5740831
Could you please try to make a better argument, this is embarrassing. You either don't have a solid grasp on the lingo, or you're bored looking to troll.

>>5740354
>not using Gödel's completeness theorems
>not being well versed in Less Wrong
>2013
>mfw

http://lesswrong.com/lw/g1y/godels_completeness_and_incompleteness_theorems/

>>5740370
>What makes a premises true?
Empirical evidence. Pls respond

>>5741385
Response

>>5741385
>Empirical Evidence
lel no

>>5741343
It's simply a matter of every aspect having a form of further function, and the thing in question could be noted to fall out relatively immediately to them, and given the state of the lingo of things, we don't have to walk very far to have my train come blaring through your living room, relatively(hopefullylol).

>>5741666
Please be more vague

>>5741666
2/10 needs moar qualia

>>5741735
"Qonstant Further Function"
The Q being in the way of operators.
You have something, and that's fine and good, but then you throw it; If you still consider it yours, anything it collides with, can be the same sequence of formula and indicative of the whole motion or answer.

Now the point being, of which kinds of things, and their available subset of waves, does it collide with

>>5727872
He's not "strawmanning"

Learn2fallacy

>>5740873

This is the first post I've seen that seems to have a halfway adequate account of what logic is,

>>5727930
>The point being that we base our logic on what we're feeling, and if you're not, you will not aquire logic.
... what the fuck, really, what. the. fuck.

>>5741760
you must have a poor grasp with either pragmatics or logic itself.

>>5727923

This is the biggest load of fucking jargon I've ever read. I believe Einstein said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

You sir, are a psuedo-intellectual faggot, or, I've been trolled, in which case, good day to you.

>>5727813
Classically, one could make arguments based on emotion, not logic. Of course you can boil practically everything down logically, but they didn't know that back then and people today still often either don't know how to prove things logically or simply don't give a damn and yet still make arguments.

>>5742284
Come on, shake your body baby,
Do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer

>>5727813

logic and philosophy were linked in the ancient world. not so much these days.

>>5742762

Modal and Temporal Logic.

>>5742329
Please do my homework with you're Uni degree again