What are the Limitations of Purely Logical Arguments in the Context of Ontology?

[Hurkyl]

Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena.

I'm surprised nobody has picked up on this aspect of what you said:

One can understand the small through its relation to the large.

You have suggested that the modern physics of the small is invalid because it is dealing with things that are "beyond perception". However, we can infer about such things based on their interactions with things that aren't beyond perception.


And, incidentally, the reverse is just as important. We can infer about the large through its interactions with the small, which allows us to do, for instance, astronomy.

What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field?

I'm probably wrong, but this is how I understand it:

The "average" of such a field behaves like we would expect a point particle to behave. Not exactly as such, but very similarly. For many problems, the difference is insignificant enough that it does not affect results, thus we can approximate them as point particles.


For a very simplistic analogy, imagine we have a very long string. We can wiggle the string which causes waves to form. These waves are carrying energy. If the waves are small enough, then their spatial extent may be irrelevant for the problems we're doing, and we can treat them as if we have created particles that are carrying energy instead of wiggling a string to produce a wave, which may greatly simplify whatever we were trying to calculate.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke?

By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

Further more by rejecting QM I am not rejecting the existence of electrons, atoms, etc. QM is a mechanics that attempts to describe the physical behavior of particles. It is not a theory of what exists. In reality all of physics is nothing more than a model. It is subject to the constraints of the mathematics used to describe it. For example, all the problems with infinities and sigularities arise are a result of the attempt to present a mathematical picture of reality. Math and physics can approximate the quantitative nature of reality but offer no conclusive statements on the untimate nature of the phenomena they seek to describe.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else.

I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existence at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me.


Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existence at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me.

I said in that not all perception is valid. I did not say that all perception is invalid. Perception, as I explained it, refers to the senses not to all minds. In particular sight. The level of atoms and particles is beyond the scope of the senses. You need to understand this very important point. The rejection of perception only applies to a certain scale.

Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic.

That is the evidence. That is the reason. The questions you are asking are indicative of what I said. You are looking for some inherent reason to establish something. The logic goes like this. A vase exists because it functions in accordance with its definition. Your qualification for existence is some kind of meta-physical overly complex idea. The reality of the conventional world is simply that all people agree on something being a vase, give it a definition and accept it. There is nothing more.

 

[Zero]

You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not. That arbitrary and subjective choice renders your philosophy incoherent and inconsistant.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?

What do you know about Buddhism that qualifies you to make this statement?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not.

Prove it.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that.

Have you studied Buddhist logic?

 

[Zero]

I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind.

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind.

If you haven't studied Buddhism how can you say I know nothing about it?

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.

If you haven't studied Buddhism you would not be able to distinguish between what I say and what is being quoted.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing.

I am not sure what you idea of a proof would be. I can quote texts all day but if you have not studied them how can you accept them? This is not the mark of a scholar.

What is more important is the logical consistency of the argument, not the ability to quote sources you don't accept. This is the point I have made over and over again.

I can give you definitions from texts and in accordance with these definitions my logic is perfect. Again my statement from before:

A vase exists because it can perform a function.

If you knew how to pursue a logical argument instead of saying my logic is inconsistent you would pick apart this particular argument.

 

[Zero]

LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest

I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

Can you explain why, instead of stating that it is true?

 

[protonman]

I answered your question. Remember asking ...Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

 

[Zero]

Ok, that is step one...now, can you explain WHY this should be true?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page?

 

[phoenixthoth]

who cares who originally wrote it?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
who cares who originally wrote it?

The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page?

It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though.

 

[Zero]

At this point, this isn't even about protonman's specific ideas, IMO. It is about proper uses of logic, and ways to compellingly present ideas.

 

[protonman]

First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.

In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.

I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.

The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.

I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two?

Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though.

You have crossed the line and we are done.

As for the name of the text I made it up you idiot. I told you there is no point in me quoting a text because you couldn't validate it anyway. Akhron made an excellent point, you can't verify it by just my posting. What is more important, and what I have been saying all along, is that the reasoning behind the arguments is what is important for this exact reason.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

May I ask who you are calling an idiot? Who are you calling a baby?

And, of course, now we see much more clearly that this is a religious-based worldview, which has nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. Cool.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas.

For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications.

Are you claiming to be able to translate Buddhist writings yourself, from the original Pali?

 

[phoenixthoth]

to one degree or another, i believe it is possible to understand something or some subject without knowing much about it. when michio kaku talks about science, i believe i can learn more about what science is rather than about science (although i learn about science as well).

 

[Fliption]

Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please.

 

[phoenixthoth]

words of wisdom, my friend. the same about condescending tones goes for us all. also realize that often when we read between the lines, we are blind.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

(snip)

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

At least, you have never presented the rudiments of such a logic anywhere in these Forums.

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application.

Greek logic is independent of any applications. It can be applied to anything that is amenable to a two-valued logic.

The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

And that connection is...?

There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together.

Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible.

It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate.

Actually, most of us do know how to proceed in a debate. Furthermore, it is apparent that you do not. See, debates proceed by elucidating one's point. That way, the other person can try your point of view on for size and see if he likes it. 'Elucidating' is what we all have been doing (ok, maybe not Zero, j/k ). What you have been doing is emphatically denying our point of view with no justification whatsoever, refusing to address our arguments or answer direct questions, and hiding behind a veneer of arrogance that I can only assume masks your ignorance of the subjects being discussed.

The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

Well, as Ahrkron correctly pointed out, your attacks so far have been "lousy".

 

[phoenixthoth]

"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Fliption
Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please.

If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position.

Position on what?

 

[protonman]

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Position on what?

let's start with what you know about God.