POLL: Is the argument valid?

[DBT]

A syllogism is of course a valid form of argument. The issue is whether the conclusion of the syllogism is valid. The validity of the conclusion is related to the given premises and must be supported by the terms of the premises. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, if the conclusion is not supported by the premises, the argument fails.

A conclusion is valid if and only if the argument is valid. That's the same thing exactly. No difference.

A valid conclusion may be true or false. If the premises are true and the conclusion valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true by definition. You cannot have true premises and a conclusion which is both valid and false.

If you think that the conclusion is false, then you need to decide whether it is because the premises are false or whether it is because the conclusion is not valid (or both).

And in both cases, you need to explain why. Merely making an unsupported claim is of not interest to anyone.

And so what you say here doesn't make sense.

Further, this thread is about a particular argument. If you can't get yourself to cast your vote, please abstain from any comment.
EB

I have given an explanation for why your conclusion does not follow from your premises in your other thread. I didn't vote because the wording of your poll does not quite represent my position (nor is voting compulsory).

I have now voted ''The argument doesn't make sense '' because your conclusion is not justified by the terms of the premises.

The reason being - if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

The correct conclusion based on your premises being;

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

 

[Wiploc]

OK, so you may want to try and answer poll 2.
EB

Link?

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, so you may want to try and answer poll 2.
EB

Link?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17614-POLL-2-Is-this-second-argument-valid

Beware it's a bit harder.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A syllogism is of course a valid form of argument. The issue is whether the conclusion of the syllogism is valid. The validity of the conclusion is related to the given premises and must be supported by the terms of the premises. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, if the conclusion is not supported by the premises, the argument fails.

A conclusion is valid if and only if the argument is valid. That's the same thing exactly. No difference.

A valid conclusion may be true or false. If the premises are true and the conclusion valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true by definition. You cannot have true premises and a conclusion which is both valid and false.

If you think that the conclusion is false, then you need to decide whether it is because the premises are false or whether it is because the conclusion is not valid (or both).

And in both cases, you need to explain why. Merely making an unsupported claim is of not interest to anyone.

And so what you say here doesn't make sense.

Further, this thread is about a particular argument. If you can't get yourself to cast your vote, please abstain from any comment.
EB

I have given an explanation for why your conclusion does not follow from your premises in your other thread. I didn't vote because the wording of your poll does not quite represent my position (nor is voting compulsory).

I have now voted ''The argument doesn't make sense '' because your conclusion is not justified by the terms of the premises.

The reason being - if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

The correct conclusion based on your premises being;

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

That can only qualify as the most brainless derail since Jesus Christ walked on water.

Here, is the argument you're supposed to assess for validity:

This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument.

Here is the logical argument:

For all we know, A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Is the argument valid?
EB

So, you can't even answer a straight question with a straight answer. No need to talk to you. Nobody does but UM, anyway.

So, you go on ignore, too.
EB

 

[DBT]

I have given an explanation for why your conclusion does not follow from your premises in your other thread. I didn't vote because the wording of your poll does not quite represent my position (nor is voting compulsory).

I have now voted ''The argument doesn't make sense '' because your conclusion is not justified by the terms of the premises.

The reason being - if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain, and what what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' (PI, P2), what someone does is not being determined by the conscious mind (conclusion) but by the state of the neurons in this persons brain that is responsible for both conscious mind formation and related action.

It is not the mind that is acting, but the brain acting by means of conscious mind (partly by means of conscious mind, motor action being a separate pathway)

The correct conclusion based on your premises being;

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

That can only qualify as the most brainless derail since Jesus Christ walked on water.

Here, is the argument you're supposed to assess for validity:

This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument.

Here is the logical argument:

For all we know, A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Is the argument valid?
EB

So, you can't even answer a straight question with a straight answer. No need to talk to you. Nobody does but UM, anyway.

So, you go on ignore, too.
EB

Sour Grapes. I made a fair and reasonable comment.

You know very well that it's not the syllogism itself that's being questioned

Your argument - For all we know, A may be the state of B; What C does is determined by the state of B;Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A - is not itself the issue, but the terms and references of your premises A and B as related to your conclusion.

You are an arrogant Ponce from start to finish.

You only consider what you deem to be acceptable and what you don't, you typically denigrate. Perhaps not even understanding what was said.

Good Riddance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, thanks to those who have provided genuine inputs.

So, everybody thinks the argument is valid and of course it is.

It's been confirmed to me as valid by two modal logic specialists, provided you assume the second premise as known, which is indeed the idea.

Original

For all we know, A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

Formal expression

◇A ≡ State(B)....................................................i.e. For all we know or possibly (◇), A is (≡) the state of B (the symbol "≡" meaning "identity")
◻What-does(C) = Determined-by(State(B))............i.e. It is known (◻) that what C does is determined by the state of B
◇What-does(C) = Determined-by(A)......................i.e. For all we know, what C does is determined by A

Nothing really difficult, though.

So, now we have the general logical structure clarified, which should help understanding the 2nd, more complex, argument.

I guess this will have to take more time.

I'd be interested if more people could cast a vote.

Thanks.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

1. A may be B

2. C = B

3. Therefore A may be C

Sure. It follows.

Yeah
Premise - I don't know something
Premise - I don't know something else
Therefore - there's at least two things I don't know

 

[Learner]

Deleted post, (forget I even was here)