Logic splogic?

Question

Thought exists.
All thoughts are real.
Infinity is a thought.
Therefore, infinity exists.
Nothing is a thought.
therefore, nothing exists.
As all thoughts exist in thought, every thought exists.
ONLY thought exists.
thought is boundless, as is "nothing" and "infinity".
What do i suggest?
I have put this forward before and has been met with poor response.

All thought is valid/invalid? Some thoughts are valid/invalid? Confused.
A sound argument doesn't have to be based on logic. Logic is an invalid and unsound argument. Logic cannot be knowledge as its foundation is non-existant. where is the philosophical thought involved in puzzle-solving. Not all questions can be broken down to have a logical answer. So why don't we just ignore them. All premises are based on thoughts. All thoughts are real. All thoughts are sound. Prove they are not rather than bypassing them as illogical.

Mr burns---You assume that i assume. I do not,you do. "the human brain is all-encompassing"--boll*cks. Tell me where i made any link between the human brain and thought? I didn't. Your logic told you that i MUST make that link. Logic is a paradigm.

Oh-- cop-out.
Why does the word fallacy creep into so many logical minds? I use the term logic loosely. Why do such persons use this word which best describes philosophical logic in their own defence? Logic is a cop-out. There must be an answer. Join the church, they have all the answers too.

JACK-- I don't deal with "not necessarily" and neither does logic. wrong domain. No maybe's either please.

SOPHIST--- "assumptions" "erroneous".
As usual,boll*cks.
Logic is erroneous based on assumptions. It is based on the predicate of existence. Again, wrong domain.

JACK-- What do you know of the substance of delusions? Unless you are deluded then you cannot logically know what of their substance? What of form? What is the idea of mind over matter? Does the theory of relativity delve into this equation? Are all illogical ideas or thoughts delusions or just illogical? What is in a dream? Does any thought have substance? In terms of form? There is no obvious conclusion to any form or substance. That is why there are so many questions. Does any question have a completely sound answer? (without predicated logic)

JACK-- "I" beg your pardon. I do not claim that my thoughts are absolute and neither do i claim that your thoughts are absolute. I am not wrong as i have not given any answer as truth, contingent or otherwise. I am open to criticism although i do not invite it. I simply put words together which can be interpreted by the individual or a contingency(context). your thoughts are mine and mine are yours,whether you like it or not,as they are shared. I cannot be wrong or right, is that not the beauty?

Bobby B___ "I" did not say that your thoughts exist, how could they? To say that my "argument (if that's what it is)" is ambiguous and yet answer it by criticising the illogical nature of it's logical language is exactly the point i make. The words seem to attract 'logical' answers to an 'unsound' syllogism. Why? Is it because some find it hard to see past the logical endeavour in finding truth. What is the truth? What do your thoughts tell you about the unknown? That is right-nothing.

Jack- "I" will avoid your own ramblings as attacking you would be to attack my self.
What do i believe-- Quite simply, i believe nothing and everything. Again quite simply, i know nothing to be truth and all believe all things, by the nature of existence, to be possible. I know that i do not know. I have many ideas that i do not hold as truth or fact as i would have to believe them to be truth or fact for them to be believed.As i doubt everything, even that of existence, my thoughts remain firmly open. I do not say that you are wrong and neither will i say you are right. Excuse me please if a lot of what is sketchy as i have a 2yo running around and an 8 month pregnant partner. Thank you for asking my opinion. As i said, i have an infinite mind for suggestions if none are deemed as FACT.

Dryestflame--And everything

POLLOX--Word games indeed. I am not in this for the answers and least not popular definitions of words. My interpretation of words such as infinity are not the same as your own? There are flaws in the theory of language that are best understood WITHOUT using it. There are flaws in all arguments because of the various meanings, definitions and interpretations of the words used. Try thinking more and writing and talking less and thought becomes a little more clear. (ergo)

(?) (I) (think)

cogitare? what? bit of a joke that?

Oh.. and the "sum" of what? Let's stick to first language if any at all.
Have you ever actually 'cogitated' about the words that you associate to Descartes? Could you ever associate these words with your own thoughts or self? Or are they just words to be understood? Please think about it?

Oh....and i know what you think?

Answer 1

I was going to go into detail here but it's too late in the evening.

My confusion (your confusion) is between 'reality', non-existence and possibility.

So,while things only exist in thought, the thought of something does not bring it into existence. Thoughts are real, but that isn't the same as reality.

And now I have a (n unintended) duality. Bugger!

We live in a universe of infinite possibilities. Or we do not. So my thoughts of a cake may manifest materially (although not here, apparently). Or they may not. There is no way for me to know is there?

In fact the more of your questions I read, the less I know. My 'answer' therefore is just a bow in your direction.

Answer 2

Your last post was totally incoherent. You state "All thoughts are real." That is an absolute statement. Anytime you use the word "All" you are stating absolutes -- so it does no good saying you don't use absolutes -- you just did. You post abstruse, rambling questions with no direction or apparent purpose. Do you know what would help? Step back and post a coherent set of principles. Answer these questions -- please...

Exactly what do you believe?
Exactly why do you believe these things?

==============================================

I beg you pardon, but logic and philosophy both deal with "Not Necessarilly's" all the time. They're called "Contingent Truths."
The idea that thoughts are real is a contingent truth. Therefore, it's not absolute as you claim. Sorry -- but you're wrong.

==============================================

Thought exists -- That is correct.

Thoughts are real -- That is correct in form; but not necessarily correct in substance. Thoughts are real ONLY in the sense that the process of thinking is real. But though the process by which a thought is derived is real -- the substance of the thought itself may be totally UNREAL.

I can "think" of a universe that both is and isn't. That I have thought such a thought is real; but the universe that is and is not is unreal.

Just because you can think something doesn't make the thought real. People in mental institutions have delusions all of the time. Are delusions real. Yes, in the sense that people REALLY have them. But the substance of the delusions people have are UNREAL.

Don't confuse form and substance.

Answer 3

What exists can we say the thought exists if we use the logic that if a tree in a forest fall and is not felt, hear or see by any thing it has not fallen then thought can't exist as it is not been preserved and therefore dose not exist and as for infinity this to can’t exist as you can say that only now exist, if I move from A to B and there is a C. A is in the past if I am on B and C is in the future so only B exist as A has gone and C is still to come infinity implies that something goes on for ever so it is more then now and so can’t esist. Of course this is only my thought and so doesn’t exist only the black lines on the screen and I will say I never thought them.

Answer 4

Word games.... As soon as you start talking about the existence of anything, you're on tricky philosophical ground. There are subtle "flaws" (not exactly flaws, but subtle semantic ambiguities I suppose) in your question. For example infinity (a noun) is an abstract concept in mathematics and "exists" as a concept. Sometimes mathematicians refer to "actual infinities", but that's also an abstract concept, just different from the usual limit concept of infinity. Even in a non-mathematical context, infinity is an abstract concept, which can be the content of thought. The same is true of "nothing". The concept of "nothing" clearly exists and can be thought about and such thoughts would exist.

If one says (as you do) "nothing exists" without any context, on the other hand, most people would interpret it as equivalent to "no thing exists", which is clearly not true. I would even go so far as to call it nonsensical because the very words used to convey it obviously exist.

There is also a nonsequitor in your question, That's where you make the leap from "As all thoughts exist in thought, every thought exists" to "ONLY thought exists". That every thought (as opposed to every possible thought) exists, strikes me as a trivial tautology, but there's no way to reason from that to "ONLY thought exists".

There is a particular definition of "existence" for which one might argue that "only thought exists", but it would take a lot of words to explain that. It's related to Descartes's "I think. Therefore, I am" ('ergo cogito sum"). See the article that I put a link to under "Sources" below.

Is this a koan?

Answer 5

You logic erroneous, among other things it is full of fallacies and assumptions. Are thoughts real ? is infinity a thought, an idea, or a paradigm ? Is existance composed of thoughts ? Is nothing a tought, an idea, or a paradigm ? You assume that all thoughts exist beyond a thought itself. Thought is not boundless, it is limited by the human experience and the capacity if each individual to think. You assume that the human brain is all ecompassing, but that is not case.

Answer 6

thoughts are real but they are abstract
you don't know if thoughts can be derived from the truth because you don't know the truth because you don't know reality because everyone perceives reality according to their beliefs and biases and beliefs are not absolute
if infinity is a thought, you don't know if it is merely a thought or an aspect of reality
the same can go for the thought of nothing
thoughts exist in thought but that is the only place where they exist, in thought
thought isn't the only thing that exists but it is the only definite thing because the rest is unknown, but yes thought is boundless like infinity and nothing, infinity and nothing are results of thought, despite the one similarity you pointed out, because they are results of existence and thought exists, but what is in the realm of thought cannot be compared to what is in the realm of reality

Answer 7

What a load of equivocating twoddle. Firstly you can not go from a descritptive of a concept or thought, to a veridical existential statement about the contents of that concept or thought. (as you attempt to do with the Infinity is a thought-Therefore infinity exists). Secondly how do you justify the inference "Every thought exists" to "ONLY thoughts exist". I'm baffled as to if there is any link between any of these statements and if an inference is being proposed it is a totally unjustifiable one.

To clarify further you make your argument (if thats what it is) totally flawed by attempting to use the language of logic to argue against logic. if logic is flawed then inherently your arguments are to as they are based upon the language and concepts of Logic.

Answer 8

You suggest an idealist universe of illusion. Possibly Zen, possibly Hegelian. But consider the following argument:

1 Nothing is better than God
2 Bread is better than nothing
3 Therefore bread is better than God

Its just a linguistic trick. As, unfortunately, is your argument if you examine it:

- Neither "infinity" nor "nothing" are thoughts in the sense of real, existing thoughts. They are thoughts about infinity and nothing.

- Moving from all thoughts exist to only thoughts exist is a non sequitur

Answer 9

I think this is the best question I've seen on here yet! Although it's not really even a question. This one I have to save. As for my answer . . . I have to agree, all thoughts are real. Yet your thoughts do not create a reality for me, just as mine do not create a reality for you (or anyone else). And at the same time I can't argue the "logic" of your thoughts, because thought transends logic.

Answer 10

An inane play upon words with false assumptions leading to an erroneous conclusion.