yes, I love that part too, they made a nice game to play, not to be involved in!

__________________

I knew it. I've been to the ex-fronts of the Iran's war with Iraq on a tour. someone was explaining what happened there. unimaginable, and ultimately sad. who can resist losing a good friend in a blink of an eye? I hope you didn't lose any. your job is the hardest job, your responsibility is so heavy, I wish you to be always alright, and I wish that we didn't have war anywhere on this world. peace is a gift, taken from us because of our sins.

__________________

Well, how does "If a process is unintelligent, it only produces unintelligent beings" fit the pattern of (a->b) <=> (~b->~a) ? There's no comparison between the two...

Let a(x) = "x is a process that is unintelligent". Let b(x) = "x only produces unintelligent beings". Given these definitions, a(x) -> b(x) is equivalent to your statement. Now, as you say, the transposition ~b(x) -> ~a(x) is true if and only if a(x) -> b(x).

In other words applying the transposition identity to the original claim, you get:
If the statement "If a process is unintelligent, it only produces unintelligent beings" is true, then "If something produces no unintelligent beings, then it is not an unintelligent process." is true.

This is a true statement, but one that is useless unless you can show that one side is true.

Essentially what you did was take some irrelevant but true fact and then say "therefore" followed by some unproven claim. Waffles can be eaten, therefore the stars are sentient. That something in the world is true, implies that my particular claim is true.

As I said, they did do a good job with the game. But it is far from real. Now shock and awe and bog were as close as you are going to get.

The ending really ticked me off. I must have played it fifty times trying to figure out how to get it done without everyone dieing.

__________________
ACHIEVEMENT
“Doing a good job in this place is kind of like peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, but no one notices..”


Http://www.nationalgunforum.com

it's true according to my modeling of the world. I would stick to it until you gather some evidence against it, then I'll reform my model. that's what physics does. stick to newton's till Einstein.

P.S. do you see a "therefore" in this?

__________________

If in your model of the world a(x)->b(x), then yes, logically, ~b(x)->~a(x), but that is irrelevant. You and Herkdriver both seemed to be attempting to prove a(x)->b(x) by using the identity a(x)->b(x)<=>~b(x)->~a(x), without first showing that ~b(x)->~a(x). Stop losing sight of the point of the discussion. "He showed that my deduction was illogical, so I'll go off on a completely different tangent to be right about something else."

HELLO?! I'm providing my model as a proof for the second side,

if this model is wrong, my whole statement becomes rejected, but not till then.

__________________

Who cares about the second side? (The second side being, in case you forgot, "If something produces no unintelligent beings, then it is not an unintelligent process.") I know that your model holds the first side ("if a process is unintelligent, it only produces unintelligent beings") to be true. The argument was over whether that's actually the case. It was *not* over whether the transposition is true. The transposition only even came up because you fallaciously used it to deduct that the original statement was true. The transposition is not the point of interest. We weren't discussing "If your belief is true, then the transpose is true", because that is obviously the case.

I swear, talking to some people on here is like herding cats... There is no debate, only a sequence of vague tangents with the tone of argument.

the second side is:
~(it only produces unintelligent beings) = (something not unintelligent is produced)
~(a process is unintelligent) = (the process is inteligent)

if something intelligent is produced, then the process that created it is inteligent.
I'm inteligent, so my creation process was inteligent, I name it God for now.

__________________

Transcendental argument
If reason exists then God exists.
Reason exists.
Therefore, God exists.