Thread: Silly logic game

Originally Posted by Somii

Therefore, reality can be subjective and objective.

Apparently it is you that this game is not for, because your conclusion does not follow in any way from the two premises that you chose not to cross out selected. Here's a similar argument that you should recognize as being invalid:

Cruel and unusual punishment is the result of human invention.
Human invention can be both virtuous and contemptible.
Therefore, cruel and unusual punishment can be both virtuous and contemptible.

This isn't really a matter of verbal argument. Logic is systematized in a similar way to arithmetic. Just as it is a fact that "5" does not follow from "2 + 2", it is a fact that "⋄(SUBJECTIVEreality & OBJECTIVEreality)" does not follow from "perception ⊃ reality" and "⋄(SUBJECTIVEperception & OBJECTIVEperception)."

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. It's not clear at all whether anything of interest can be deduced strictly from the premises supplied by mindwanderer. Perhaps he removed more of his original premises than he should have.

Originally Posted by DuB

Apparently it is you that this game is not for, because your conclusion does not follow in any way from the two premises that you chose not to cross out selected. Here's a similar argument that you should recognize as being invalid:

Cruel and unusual punishment is the result of human invention.
Human invention can be both virtuous and contemptible.
Therefore, cruel and unusual punishment can be both virtuous and contemptible.

This isn't really a matter of verbal argument. Logic is systematized in a similar way to arithmetic. Just as it is a fact that "5" does not follow from "2 + 2", it is a fact that "⋄(SUBJECTIVEreality & OBJECTIVEreality)" does not follow from "perception ⊃ reality" and "⋄(SUBJECTIVEperception & OBJECTIVEperception)."

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. It's not clear at all whether anything of interest can be deduced strictly from the premises supplied by mindwanderer. Perhaps he removed more of his original premises than he should have.

Are you speaking on which "result of perception" holds a different meaning from just "perception?" If this is simply the case, then you should know, that I was aware that I might have mistakenly taken them for the same idea. I pondered about this for a while (as I was getting ready for work), but left it as so. Also, there is no need to explain how logic functions, as I am aware of its intricacies (to a respectable degree).

If you find any misinterpreted mistakes in my posts, such as the mistranslation of the recent predicate I just went over, then it was a mistake that I likely knew beforehand and didn't care to correct.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

Edit: This is too easy, so I removed some statements to try and make it harder. Also, great idea for a thread!

Reality is a result of perception. Perception can be subjective and objective. No two individuals are the same.

Solve.

Onward with the half-ass game!