sewi li lon anu seme ?

Mind and thought: Wisdom, mental health, cognition, self-talk, consciousness, philosophy, psychology, optimizing your thinking, productivity hacks
Menso kaj penso: Saĝaĵoj, psiĥa sano, kogno, memparolado, psiĥa stato, filozofio, psikologio, rearanĝi sian pensadon, plibonigi sian produktokapablon
janKipo
Posts: 2797
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby janKipo » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:57 pm

loteni wrote:ni li toki utala tan ken tawa lon :

toki utala ni la sewi li jan pi pona ali.


sewi are a distinct sort of thing from jan. this is objectionable anthropomorphism. But, taking it as metaphorical OK.

toki utala ni la sewi li pana e pona ali lon ma ken ali
toki utala ni la sewi li lon tenpo ali


jan li pilin e toki nanpa tu wan la ona li wile pilin e ni: sewi li lon. If this is a premise to an argument that God exists, the argument is circular. Or rather, it can conclude only that, *according to this argument* God exists, but says nothing about what is really the case. Note, incidentally, that radiating goodness to all worlds doesn't require being in all worlds

nanpa wan: ken la sewi li lon


Since God's existence is something claimed in an argument and is not obviously contradictry or paradoxical, I suppose we can allow this outside the argument.

nanpa tu: sewi li lon ken la sewi li lon ma ken wan


Not sure why 'lon ken' rather than 'ken lon' but it doesn't seem to matter.

nanpa tu wan: sewi li lon ma ken wan la sewi li lon ma ken ali


Whoa, Nellie! you can't jump the whole ontological argument in one sentence. This is the crux of the argument and so needs to be laid out in detail. As it stands, it is almost certainly false (it is for everything else).

nanpa tu tu: sewi li lon ma ken ali la sewi li lon ma pi mi mute
nanpa tu tu wan: sewi li lon ma pi mi mute la sewi li lon

tan ni la sewi li lon


So, circular and unsound at least,

loteni
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby loteni » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:38 pm

janKipo wrote:sewi are a distinct sort of thing from jan. this is objectionable anthropomorphism. But, taking it as metaphorical OK.


I'm not sure how you interpret that, but strictly it is just part of the definition, and means; God is a person of complete goodness. It is not metaphorical or an anthropomorphism. I really didn't strictly need the "jan", the "jan" is implied with "sewi"

janKipo wrote:jan li pilin e toki nanpa tu wan la ona li wile pilin e ni: sewi li lon. If this is a premise to an argument that God exists, the argument is circular. Or rather, it can conclude only that, *according to this argument* God exists, but says nothing about what is really the case. Note, incidentally, that radiating goodness to all worlds doesn't require being in all worlds


I'm not sure what your toki pona sentence there is trying to mean; that someone who feels premise 3 should feel that God exists ? What does that even mean ? What you quoted that I actually wrote were not premises, they are still part of the definition; aka "in this argument" fragment before "la".
Note, incidentally, that the different worlds in modal logic are not accessible from each other in any way, so for an entity to do anything in one, means said entity must exist in that world.

janKipo wrote:Since God's existence is something claimed in an argument and is not obviously contradictry or paradoxical, I suppose we can allow this outside the argument.


That is not outside the argument, it is actually premise number one. It is customary to number the premises in the argument. "nanpa wan: ... " should make it obvious this is actually the first premise in the argument. The only one actually that is important, since if you accept that, you have to accept the conclusion; God exists.

janKipo wrote:Not sure why 'lon ken' rather than 'ken lon' but it doesn't seem to matter.


It is the difference between possibly existing, and existing possibly. So im not saying he might exist in a world, Im saying he definitely exists in atleast one world out of all the possible ones.

janKipo wrote:Whoa, Nellie! you can't jump the whole ontological argument in one sentence. This is the crux of the argument and so needs to be laid out in detail. As it stands, it is almost certainly false (it is for everything else).


This step is trivial, and comes from how God is defined, if he definitely exists in one possible world, then he exists in all of them.
This is true by definition, so it is not actually coherent to claim it is false.

janKipo wrote:So, circular and unsound at least,

It is not circular, as you demonstrated, since you found it easy to accept premise 1, and then was amazed with the knew knowledge that that means you should believe God actually exists.
It is not unsound, since it is logically valid, and as you agree the only input premise, 1, is acceptably true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly though you do not want to believe in God, so you probably want to just say that you do not believe premise 1, and you think God as so defined is not even possible.

--- I am sure we went over all of this before... :/
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.

janKipo
Posts: 2797
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby janKipo » Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:28 pm

'jan' means "great ape" and so incudes humans; the use for persona is merely a local extension, Go is not a great ape (or aything like one and very probably not a person in any recognizable sense.) jus say 'sewi li pona ali': no problems.

"A person who believes (thinks) sentence number one must believe that God exists", if he is rational, of course, since being in time entails being.

If different possible worlds are not accessible from one another, then the ontological argument fails even to prove that God possibly exists and, indeed, you can't argue from the claim of his possible existence to his existence in some possible world.

So, what are the sentences before the premises, the "according to this argument"? They seem to be important for the whole thing.

OK. It seems a fine point, given the modal framework and I am not sure what you can make of it. Maybe the difference between PEx x=g and ExPx=g?, though I am not sure which is which.

What definition? Are we pulling all this out of the "if he exists in some world he helps in all worlds"? But that goes against the non-accessibility property again. So, it is not trivial and need a lot of work.

Sorry, it just doesn't work by any standard set of rules. And, of course, the fact that you give a definition doesn't prove that anything satisfying that definition exists.

loteni
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby loteni » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:23 pm

jan doesnt mean great ape, it is specifically reserved for human beings. Because of that I probably should not have used it, however it is often used to mean personhood, and that was it's intention.

person believes sentence.... being in time.... oh right, you still have difficulties between definitions and premises... :/

You can define the pasta monster as existing in all time if you want, I can believe that is what the pasta monster is; aka something that exists in all time, without believing the pasta monster exists... since it is merely the definition.... :/

In modal logic, to say something possibly exists, is to say it definitely exists in some possible world. The ontological argument simply cannot fail to "prove" God possibly exists, that is its input premise.... :/

The sentences before the premises are the definitions, as I keep explaining to you.... :/

Yes it is a fair points, since it is how you would frame that if you understood the basic idea of modal logic .... :/

Sorry, it just does work by the standard set of rules of modal logic. Of course the definition doesn't prove anything, that why they are called definitions and not existence proofs. What seeks to prove existence is the actual argument that follows the definition.... :/

jan kipo, since you do not understand this argument, and I have explained to you numerous times the same things already... I feel we are at a deadend here. Thanks for the input, though.
I do have a simpler argument posted as well, but you cannot follow that either.... :/
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.

loteni
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby loteni » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:37 pm

jan Kipo:

Out of interest, what did you actually do professionally in the field of logic ? Ofcourse this has many subdomains, maybe you worked in one that wouldn't necessarily be reflective of your knowledge of basic arguments like these ?
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.

janKipo
Posts: 2797
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby janKipo » Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:21 pm

I taught everything from "critical thinking" to Goedel Theory, but my specialty (which I rarely taught) was modal logic, especially tense logic. I also taught Philosophy of Religion (at all levels, from intro to Philosophical Theology) and Asian Philosophy. Oh, and I trained to be a (n Episcopal) Deacon but was too old to be ordained.

loteni
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby loteni » Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:35 pm

modal tense, yet you fail to appreciate that ken la is sometimes ?!

Why the paradox between your profession and your inability to engage at a decent level with these simple arguments ?
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.

janKipo
Posts: 2797
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby janKipo » Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:02 pm

I would say that my mistake was thinking that you knew more than you did and in trying to put the best construction what you said. But alas, it turned out you just mean what said without any back up. So, rather than being their invalid full forms, your arguments just started in the middle of things. That is hard to deal with in a class ( where my head always is) that insists on starting from basics and building gradually. I apologize for assuming you knew the basics and the intervening steps.

loteni
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby loteni » Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:15 pm

But you failed to even attack the correct points, and instead just showed that you didn't comprehend the underlying logic. Or even what a definition is ?
You was confused about what conditional premises were like. You was confused about definitions, and arguments, mixing them up. You was confused about the accessibility of the different possible worlds. You was confused about the validity and form of the arguments.

Tell how is it you can be an expert in modal logic, and not know that the different worlds are event horizoned to each other ?
How can you be an expert in philosophy of religion and not know what the moral argument is and isnt ?
How can you be an expert in critical thinking and not realise that if the conclusion is that God exists, and the 2 premises are 1. that without God, X is not, 2. X is, and then request I support the conclusion rather than any premise ? This is the most basic form of argument that you would learn in your very first philosophy 101 lesson ?

How do claim this kind of logical expertise, without knowing what the definition of a contradiction is ?
How can an expert of these things claim; "all theist arguments are invalid", "THE atheist argument is sound"... ? That atheist argument has not been popular for well known reasons for 50 odd years ?
How does an expert of these things produce youtube style claims of contradiction of omni3 properties ?

I'm sorry but these things just don't add up...
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.

janKipo
Posts: 2797
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sewi li lon anu seme ?

Postby janKipo » Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:12 am

Probably because none of them is correct. Although most of them do appear to apply to you. But you make no claim to expertise (aside from your criticism of mine) so that you are totally muddled is not a problem.


Return to “sona pona”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest