Logic Problem

[Holiday20310401]

Ok, so I am having trouble with connecting a premise to a conclusion here and was wondering if anybody knew how to do a truth table to end up with the conclusion that I have. And if I am missing any premises, or if premises are wrong, etc.

Ok, I know this is opinionated, and debatable, but lets say spirituality is meant to be evoked through introspect.

And one's spirituality is not meant to be evoked from the society for objective means, such as institutions, other people, fascism, etc.

Actually.... let me rephrase this whole thing. Lets say sanity implies a certain condition and that spirituality is no exception, and religion as such, is not following that condition.

The condition is that logic is allowed to be influenced by the environment, whereas emotion is influenced by introspect.

But how can I take my original premise and turn it into the conclusion religion is insane using a truth table and the condition.

Also, if anybody could provide better opinions than mine thats fine too. But they are meant to be opinions for now, right now I'm only concerned about the truth tables connecting them. Can somebody help me?

[Arjen]

Holiday, I am getting the feeling that you are trying to use logic as a means of proving your thoughts. Logic does not function that way. It is a means of studying reasoning, to see if reasoning is correct or not. One cannot, on the basis of logic, state that a certain conclusion is correct. I might be able to prove that you are in fact the flying spaghetti monster in logic, it doesn't make it any truer though. Truth tables are used to determine which premises need to be present to make a certain situation 'true'. Depending on what form of logic used one gets totally different situations though. The project you are now submitting 'might' be a little of your head because I think it would best be tackeld using modal logic. I am in no way good enough in that to be able to explain it properly.

Have you studied VideCorSpoon's logic symposia? In that case you might be a ble to make a (propositional) logic sentence of your 'premises'. I'll make a (propositional logical) truth table of your first 'premise', then you can do another and we'll see where we end up, okay?

spirituality is meant to be evoked through introspect

Translational key:
Spirituality=S
Introspect=I

Logical sentence:
I®S

Truth table:
I S (I®S)
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 1
(crappy display, I am sorry)

Do you see the result of you 'premise' by splitting it up in premises? It might not be what you had in mind when you wrote that. Let's see what we else we can find out. You do: 'And one's spirituality is not meant to be evoked from the society for objective means, such as institutions, other people, fascism, etc.'.

[Grimlock]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Ok, so I am having trouble with connecting a premise to a conclusion here...

Ceiling cat sees you reasoning backwards. How do you have a conclusion without the faintest clue why it is so?

[Holiday20310401]

hmm... because I want that conclusion, and my instincts are telling me I'm on to something.

Also I realise I have it backwards, but was wondering if the answer might be possible with multiple truth tables eventually coming to the conclusion.

I mean, if you start with a premise and devise a truth table, then you can devise a truth table from the trues of the original truth table by having half of the original and then half of a new opinion.

Then you can take the trues of the trues of the original truth table and add on a third premise, until a conclusion is reached that satisfies the opinion.

However the second and third premises have to connect in some way to the original premise. How can I do this?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

hmm... because I want that conclusion, and my instincts are telling me I'm on to something.

Also I realise I have it backwards, but was wondering if the answer might be possible with multiple truth tables eventually coming to the conclusion.

I mean, if you start with a premise and devise a truth table, then you can devise a truth table from the trues of the original truth table by having half of the original and then half of a new opinion.

Then you can take the trues of the trues of the original truth table and add on a third premise, until a conclusion is reached that satisfies the opinion.

However the second and third premises have to connect in some way to the original premise. How can I do this?

I can always devise some premises from which I can derive any conclusion you like. The problem is whether I can devise true (or plausible) premises from which I can derive that conclusion.

[Arjen]

In this case, Holiday, I think there is an easier solution to your problem. You should read two of the finest works ever written. They were written by the same author ('our Jew'): Spinoza. I think what you desire most can be gained by reading his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. This work got him excommunicated (<-- a tell-tale sign of a great work), but his Ethica (<-- that one got him to purgatory (posthumously I might add)...another tell-tale sign of a great work) is his masterpiece. It is an ethical work, written in a geometrical manner: with axioms, postulates and conclusions fashioned after Euclid's Elements.

I sincerely hope you will read these two works of 'our Jew' (He's a Dutchie. His work was once condemned at the University of Utrecht....Where I go now and again to catch some classes).

[VideCorSpoon]

Holiday,

Arjen has a point about the function of logic and your argument. Logic functions kinda like a spell check or a mathematical problem recheck. It won’t necessarily reveal your answer to you, but can check whether or not your arguments are good or not, identify logical structure, and inform you as to constructing well formed formulas. Though, if you bend logic the ways you want it, you could theoretically get what your looking for. But that is a trial and error examination.

But I am curious to develop your argument, so I hope you, Arjen, everyone else stays around to develop it.

There are two proofs that I see in your post #1.

1.Spirituality is meant to be evoked through introspect.
2.One’s spirituality is not meant to be evoked from the society for objective means (etc.)
3.Therefore, religion is insane.

Or (altering the grammatical structure a little bit)

1.Sanity implies a certain condition
2.Spirituality is no exception
3.Therefore, religion does not follow

I think it’s first necessary to develop (if we want to construct a logical proof) a lined argument. I am assuming that you are trying to prove the fallacy of religion. We may need to come up with clear and concise terms for the purpose of the proof.

Note: come up with any and all forms of axioms or statements that you think can lend to the argument because those can be incorporated into the proof and determined for relevancy and use.

[jgweed]

"I mean, if you start with a premise and devise a truth table, then you can devise a truth table from the trues of the original truth table by having half of the original and then half of a new opinion."

I don't think truth tables work this way at all. T/2? T/4?

Let us assume your argument is this: "sanity implies a certain condition and that spirituality is no exception, and religion as such, is not following that condition," and that the conclusion you want to reach is that religion is not sane. Does it go something like this?

All Sane statements are statements following a Certain condition.
No statements following a Certain condition are religious statements.
Therefore, No religious statements are Sane statements.

[Holiday20310401]

I believe that religion no longer has sane motives and is therefore not sane. We do not need it.

And I'm trying to devise how sanity works within the spiritual sense which is the benevolent point of religion. And sanity must have conditions and perhaps it varies with different forms of cognition. I've always considered it to be this constant crap within the entire frame of thought, applying it to just consciousness, never assuming that maybe there are many kinds of insanity.

And I don't want to get into the disorders in which there are dozens of, they aren't really axiomatic definitions of sanity here. They imply sanity as irrelevant.

As for truth tables, I believe they work that way jgweed. Not in halves obviously, it depends on the outcomes, the ratio of true to false. It could be 3/8. And then you'd have to branch off and think of the circular premises for getting right back to the conclusion and original premise at the same time.

I believe you could do it in 5 premises (including the original, and conclusion). That is, we would have a star shape-like pentagon framework. Each point has two lines coming out of it, joining up to two other dots, and in relation to the single point, the other two dots act as its conclusion and original premise counterparts. Thats how I see it possible.

[VideCorSpoon]

So you could say that the conclusion of any proof you would make is that religion is not relevant (we do not need it)… basically ~R.

Now that we have some sort of conclusion to work for, we can stack the premises for the argument.

From post #9, I infer the following points of yours.

1.Sanity does not work within religion = R -->~S
2.Sanity depends on cognitive faculties = S --> C
3.…
4.Therefore, religion is not relevant = ~R

Definitely need more ammunition to work with.

One thing I can advise is that if you are attacking the relevancy of religion, you need to underline the factors of relevancy. What is relevancy ? Insert your thoughts here. If what is relevant is the way you figure it (insert your thoughts here), how can religion (thoughts on religion here) fit in that framework? etc. etc. etc.

Case in point, if you want to attack the relevancy of religion, strike at the finer points of relevancy. In doing so, you approach the issue from a relative perspective which does not come off too harsh when positing it to others who have a directly opposite view. The subject and context of religion is the sweetener to the argument, so there need not be the blunt subject in the argument.

Also, in a completely random and irrelevant deviation from the subject.
(this emoticon isn't meant towards you or anything like that, I just think it's utterly hilarious. Who thinks up these things? LOL!)