Joseph Polanik the game player part XI
April 27th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the Game Player part IX :: Joseph Polanik the game player II
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness
>
> >>======================================================================
> >>Clarification 3: The Ultimate Choice
> >>======================================================================
>
> >>naturally, [7] is not the finally use of modus tollens that you make.
> >>you can combine [3] and [7]; although, since you aren’t allowed to
> >>deduce a denial of facts (-E), you deduce -A1: it is possible to
> >>attribute predicates to nothing.
>
> >>but that conclusion, -A1, will still rest on {Assumption Set: [4],
> >>[6]}.
>
> >>so there is a choice to be made between:
>
> >>C1: accepting A1 and rejecting at least one of {Assumption Set: [4],
> >>[6]}
>
> >>C2: accepting {Assumption Set: [4], [6]} and its conclusion -A1.
>
> >>I’ve given my reasons for preferring A1 over -A1: A1 is assumed by
> >>predicate logic and an analogous assumption is at the basis of
> >>axiomatic set theory.
>
> >>what is your rationale for preferring C2 on the basis of {Assumption
> >>Set: [4], [6]} which have a consequence that undermines the very basis
> >>of rational thought?
>
> >As you can see, my modus tollens begins precisely with predicate logic
> >(attributing predicates to me) and proceeds to show how that assumption
> >must be negated.
>
> I think we all understand that you have, to your own satisfaction, used
> modus tollens to negate my premise A1: it is not possible to attribute
> predicates to nothing.
>
> what is less clear is whether you actually understand how modus tollens
> operates. you *do* understand, do you not, that the truth of a
> conclusion reached via modus tollens depends on the truth of the
> assumptions made in the derivation of that conclusion?
>
> and, while we’re at it, let’s try to be clear about what those
> assumptions were.
>
> where
>
> P = ‘I am not nothing’ or ‘I exist’ [equivalent by your definitions]
> Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
>
> you assumed:
>
> P -> Q
>
> literally, if I am not nothing then I remain self-identical throughout
> all my perceptions; although, you’ve chosen to phrase this as Q is a
> necessary condition of P.
I gave an ARGUMENT for that “assumption,” which you have clipped out.
That argument was here:
http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…
Until you address each and every item there without clipping anything
out, this conversation is over.
> you also assumed
>
> -Q
>
> from your two premises there follows:
>
> -P
You clipped out my ARGUMENT for that assumption several times now. It
was here:
http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…
Until you address each and every item in that argument without clipping
anything out, this conversation is over.
> ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I am nothing’
>
> since this conclusion contradicts the conclusion I reached (’I am not
> nothing’) based on the premise A1 (it is not possible to attribute
> predicates to nothing), you negate that premise and conclude that it
> *is* possible to attribute predicates to nothing.
>
> are we agreed that this is what you have accomplished?
Until you address each and every item in my replies that I specified
above without clipping anything out, this conversation is over.
