Our beloved ******

[Dioklecian]

What makes you feel INTP?

[Joy]

uh, where and when did you hear INTp?

[Gilly]

From Transigent himself, most likely. What makes you think otherwise, Joy?

[Joy]

when? I remember him saying that in a thread a while back, but last I had heard, he'd realized that he was not an INTp.

[Kim]

when? I remember him saying that in a thread a while back, but last I had heard, he'd realized that he was not an INTp.

He is INTp because I say so. NeFi typing powers!

[Joy]

LOL

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Joy]

uhhhh who said anything about logic?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Ms. Kensington]

when? I remember him saying that in a thread a while back, but last I had heard, he'd realized that he was not an INTp.

Yeah, but the same goes for ENTp.

It pretty much revolves around the "logic" thingy, apparently only 4 types are allowed to ever use logic? (Alpha & Beta Logical Types)

However, I have doubts that is "logic" exactly.

i have incorporated your Ti definition. However I still think that Ti cannot be completely WITHOUT logic, even if by itself it is not completely pure logic. i talked about this in the chat with Pedro, however the conversation ended with us both having to think about stuff, though it was prolly just on the tip of pedro's tongue.

[Joy]

logic is not the result of using one function, it is the result of balancing the use of several functions. as always, balance is key.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[MysticSonic]

"If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent. "

Example? You have a large set to work with, so I'm sure you can provide one.

[Ms. Kensington]

logic is not the result of using one function, it is the result of balancing the use of several functions. as always, balance is key.

I think that natural intelligence is something you are born with, whether or not that has to do with functions isn't my topic in this thread. Part of that is what i mean when i say one "uses logic". Here i'm not talking about an ability but a structure, and i'll talk about that more when i respond to ******'s comments. *working*

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Gilly]

Your avatar is revolting, ******.

[Joy]

okay transigent, so what type are you?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

From what I have personally seen, I think that has more connection with actual intellegence then any other function.

Now you'd accuse me of being -phobic, but I have actually observed the opposite.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post, except for

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

[Dioklecian]

[

Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

FDG you are sooo OFFFFF base here that it isn't even funy, sorry.

Your statement can be proved to be logically inconsistent itself, in fact such a proof splled the end of the fabled and scary 'PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA' :wink:

[Dioklecian]

_________________
INTp

Another one bitesthe dust: INTP then?

Behold Dioklecian, the master typist

[FDG]

[

Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

FDG you are sooo OFFFFF base here that it isn't even funy, sorry.

Your statement can be proved to be logically inconsistent itself, in fact such a proof splled the end of the fabled and scary 'PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA' :wink:

If you prove my statement to be logically inconsistent, you'll still follow the law of causality in all your actions, since you will act purposefully with an outcome in your mind i.e. disproving my assertion. Therefore, you'll prove my point in disproving it.

[Dioklecian]

[

Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

FDG you are sooo OFFFFF base here that it isn't even funy, sorry.

Your statement can be proved to be logically inconsistent itself, in fact such a proof splled the end of the fabled and scary 'PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA' :wink:

If you prove my statement to be logically inconsistent, you'll still follow the law of causality in all your actions, since you will act purposefully with an outcome in your mind i.e. disproving my assertion. Therefore, you'll prove my point in disproving it.

Nope

[FDG]

[

Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

FDG you are sooo OFFFFF base here that it isn't even funy, sorry.

Your statement can be proved to be logically inconsistent itself, in fact such a proof splled the end of the fabled and scary 'PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA' :wink:

If you prove my statement to be logically inconsistent, you'll still follow the law of causality in all your actions, since you will act purposefully with an outcome in your mind i.e. disproving my assertion. Therefore, you'll prove my point in disproving it.

Nope

Ok, I'm right, thanks.

[Dioklecian]

[

Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

FDG you are sooo OFFFFF base here that it isn't even funy, sorry.

Your statement can be proved to be logically inconsistent itself, in fact such a proof splled the end of the fabled and scary 'PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA' :wink:

If you prove my statement to be logically inconsistent, you'll still follow the law of causality in all your actions, since you will act purposefully with an outcome in your mind i.e. disproving my assertion. Therefore, you'll prove my point in disproving it.

Nope

Ok, I'm right, thanks.

Logical proofs don't work that way, its' a process of discovery, not a legal argument.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

Yes! Metaphysical discussion!

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

Maybe. Maybe not. Prove it!

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

If you say everything has a cause, I agree. But where do the causes come from?

Eventually you gonna reach a point where there has to be a causeless cause. That is at least one logical inconsistency.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

[Dioklecian]

Yes! Metaphysical discussion!

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

Maybe. Maybe not. Prove it!

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

If you say everything has a cause, I agree. But where do the causes come from?

Eventually you gonna reach a point where there has to be a causeless cause. That is at least one logical inconsistency.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

FDG there is an actual mathematical proof of my point, read the history of Principia Mathematica, I will send you the theorem if I find it.

[FDG]

Yes! Metaphysical discussion!

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

Maybe. Maybe not. Prove it!

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

If you say everything has a cause, I agree. But where do the causes come from?

Eventually you gonna reach a point where there has to be a causeless cause. That is at least one logical inconsistency.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

FDG there is an actual mathematical proof of my point, read the history of Principia Mathematica, I will send you the theorem if I find it.

I KNOW the problem of the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves etc etc but that's not what I'm speaking about.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

Something happening doesn't mean that it is logically consistent.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

Well, if you claim that everything is consistent, then I can choose anything in the world, accept your assumption on things being logically consistent, draw the consistency back to that first point, and prove a contradiction.

1/The behaviour of your browser must be logically consistent otherwise you wouldn't know that if you clikc on the submit button you'll post.


2/You did disprove my assertion by pointing out a logical inconsistency, but this doesn not mean that everything is logically inconsistent, since my example of one thing being consistent disproves your point.


P.S. I ask for a clarification. Do you, for logically consistent, mean that P(X)=1?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

1/The behaviour of your browser must be logically consistent otherwise you wouldn't know that if you clikc on the submit button you'll post.

You assume something has to be logically consistent to work.

I point to the "first cause" to prove that something does not have to be logically consistent to work.

Gotcha now. You're right here. It's not a necessary assumption.

How can you prove that anything is consistent?

I can prove one instance of inconsistency, but I don't know if one instance of consistency can be proven at all!

Given that your point up here was correct, than you're correct here, too.

[Dioklecian]

Yes! Metaphysical discussion!

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

Maybe. Maybe not. Prove it!

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

If you say everything has a cause, I agree. But where do the causes come from?

Eventually you gonna reach a point where there has to be a causeless cause. That is at least one logical inconsistency.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

FDG there is an actual mathematical proof of my point, read the history of Principia Mathematica, I will send you the theorem if I find it.

I KNOW the problem of the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves etc etc but that's not what I'm speaking about.

Me neither, its' exactly the poit you had, the world is NOT rational, it only seems that way to you. REad Jung, he makes these points too.

[FDG]

Yes! Metaphysical discussion!

If you think about it, "Logic" in the pure form is impossible to apply to anything but Logic itself (e.g. mathematics, etc.) Absolutely NOTHING in reality is totally logically consistent.

The opposite is true. Everything is logically consistent ESPECIALLY in reality, since it follows the law of causality.

Maybe. Maybe not. Prove it!

The fact that we're speaking means that we know that if we click on the submit button, we'll post on the forum. That's the proof.

If you say everything has a cause, I agree. But where do the causes come from?

Eventually you gonna reach a point where there has to be a causeless cause. That is at least one logical inconsistency.

I concede on the first cause argument, but it's far from your first claim of nonexistence of logical consistency.

FDG there is an actual mathematical proof of my point, read the history of Principia Mathematica, I will send you the theorem if I find it.

I KNOW the problem of the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves etc etc but that's not what I'm speaking about.

Me neither, its' exactly the poit you had, the world is NOT rational, it only seems that way to you. REad Jung, he makes these points too.

I'm not buying that there is a difference between what the world is an what it seems to me and all the other people, since it's an useless assumption.

[Dioklecian]

God damn it, how can you be rational and keep that opinion in a forum about 16 DIFFERENT types and 8 functions, and rational and irrational types etc?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Dioklecian]

This thread is a good example of the pointlessness of logic, and how there is no ultimate truth in logic whatsoever. It should be used as just another tool.

Principa Mathematica!? No. Wasn't that a failed attempt to do the very same thing? Deduce some sort of completely consistent something or other?

Remember this guy?

Exactly, the austrian INTJ

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.