Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 11:47 pmOne can draw conclusions using logic, here deduction, but we learn nothing about food or bread, since we had to know already that bread was a kind of food,that food is things we eat. It doesn't say anything about food or bread.Mosesquine wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 3:49 pm Logic can say something about empirical questions.
If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate food recently.
Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently.
Therefore, he ate food recently.
I have found some of your logical analyses odd and was glad to see TH challenge them. But then I thought that perhaps I was missing your intent.
Conscoiusness would be equivalent to one of those nouns. buses or students or perhaps a process like riding.Most 80% of students go to school by riding a bus.
Charles is a student.
Therefore, probably, Charles would go to school by riding a bus.
These follow that consciousness can be explained by logic.
If we do not know what those mean at the beginning, we stil do not. But since we were able to determine the numbers, we probably did. The logic did not explain any of these things. We had to know them already.
Logic can look at the relation between sentences or absracted symbolic sequences.
It would be funny-and-absurd that one can understand bread is a kind of food, but one cannot infer from eating bread to eating food. Simply saying "all breads are food" is different from inferring like "all breads are food, and Hobbes ate a bread, so he ate food". DO NOT underrate the importance of formal logic.