You are a potato!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tomyris

Guest
Potatoes are not aware that they are potatoes. If you are not aware that you are a potato, then you must be a potato.

However, if you are aware that you are a potato, then …hmmm. conundrum…

I am calling on all potatoes and non-potatoes to solve this.

Fries will NOT be served as refreshments on this thread.
 
that statement is fallacious. you are affirming the consequent.
 
:kissme:, I’m an Irish potato!

(Okay, not really.) 😃

By the way, are fries still “French fries” or are they “freedom fries”? 😉
 
Proof of my non-potato-ness/hood:
  1. Tomyris’s logic is impenetrable. As a being who is unaware of being a potato, I am, in fact, a potato.
  2. I’ve seen, recognized, and been convinced by the infallible logic of this proof and have now become aware that I am actually a potato.
    3.Potatoes are not aware that they are potatoes.
  3. Ergo, since I am now aware of being a potato, I can’t possibly be a potato.
 
Tomyris said:
Potatoes are not aware that they are potatoes. If you are not aware that you are a potato, then you must be a potato.

However, if you are aware that you are a potato, then …hmmm. conundrum…

I am calling on all potatoes and non-potatoes to solve this.

Fries will NOT be served as refreshments on this thread.
Click to expand...
This is an invalid syllogism.

Since it is a conditional syllogism (if…then), we must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. I’ll begin by affirming the antecedent and putting it in the form of a logical syllogism.

No potatoes are that which are aware that they are potatoes.

No (you) is that which is aware that they are potatoes.

Therefore, You are a potato.

This violates Aristotle’s Rule 5 which states that no syllogism can have two negatives.
That makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the “you” in premise 2 is undistributed. The “you” in the conclusion is distributed. This is in violation of Aristotle’s 4th Rule which states that no term which is undistributed in the premise may be distributed in the conclusion.
This makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the mood of the syllogism is EEA (NO S is P, NO S is P, All S is P) and it is a Figure 2 syllogism because the middle term is the predicate in both premises.
P - M
S - M
S - P
The only valid Figure 2 syllogisms are in the mood EAE,AEE, EIO, AOO.
Therefore, this syllogism is invalid.

If we instead deny the consequent, we again violate Aristotle’s Rule 5, no syllogism can have two negative premises. (etc. blah, blah, blah)
 
Fezzik said:
This is an invalid syllogism.

Since it is a conditional syllogism (if…then), we must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. I’ll begin by affirming the antecedent and putting it in the form of a logical syllogism.

No potatoes are that which are aware that they are potatoes.

No (you) is that which is aware that they are potatoes.

Therefore, You are a potato.

This violates Aristotle’s Rule 5 which states that no syllogism can have two negatives.
That makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the “you” in premise 2 is undistributed. The “you” in the conclusion is distributed. This is in violation of Aristotle’s 4th Rule which states that no term which is undistributed in the premise may be distributed in the conclusion.
This makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the mood of the syllogism is EEA (NO S is P, NO S is P, All S is P) and it is a Figure 2 syllogism because the middle term is the predicate in both premises.
P - M
S - M
S - P
The only valid Figure 2 syllogisms are in the mood EAE,AEE, EIO, AOO.
Therefore, this syllogism is invalid.

If we instead deny the consequent, we again violate Aristotle’s Rule 5, no syllogism can have two negative premises. (etc. blah, blah, blah)
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum! 🙂 A superb post… 👍
 
Tomyris said:
Potatoes are not aware that they are potatoes. If you are not aware that you are a potato, then you must be a potato.

However, if you are aware that you are a potato, then …hmmm. conundrum…

I am calling on all potatoes and non-potatoes to solve this.

Fries will NOT be served as refreshments on this thread.
Click to expand...
Rocks aren’t aware that they are potatoes either. The problem with your logic is that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Just because a potato is unaware doesn’t mean that all things that are unaware are potatoes, just like not all shapes with four sides and four 90 degree angles are squares. Some rectangles are squares and some aren’t.

Here are some points to consider.

No potato is aware.
Some things that are unaware are potatoes. Some are not.

You could structure it ‘All potatoes are unaware. You are aware, therefore you are not a potato.’

You can’t make a conclusion about an object that is unaware. The most you could say is ‘you are unaware, therefore you might be a potato.’ But at the same time you might not.
 
Fezzik said:
This is an invalid syllogism.

Since it is a conditional syllogism (if…then), we must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent. I’ll begin by affirming the antecedent and putting it in the form of a logical syllogism.

No potatoes are that which are aware that they are potatoes.

No (you) is that which is aware that they are potatoes.

Therefore, You are a potato.

This violates Aristotle’s Rule 5 which states that no syllogism can have two negatives.
That makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the “you” in premise 2 is undistributed. The “you” in the conclusion is distributed. This is in violation of Aristotle’s 4th Rule which states that no term which is undistributed in the premise may be distributed in the conclusion.
This makes this syllogism invalid.

Additionally, the mood of the syllogism is EEA (NO S is P, NO S is P, All S is P) and it is a Figure 2 syllogism because the middle term is the predicate in both premises.
P - M
S - M
S - P
The only valid Figure 2 syllogisms are in the mood EAE,AEE, EIO, AOO.
Therefore, this syllogism is invalid.

If we instead deny the consequent, we again violate Aristotle’s Rule 5, no syllogism can have two negative premises. (etc. blah, blah, blah)
Click to expand...
Not bad, for a potato. (Welcome and that was an Awesome Post!)

I would, actually, start off attacking the first premise, which some other Alert Reader picked up on, but did not really get to the Root of the thing (pun intended). Do we really know that potatoes are not self aware? I will confess that I did not diligently search the professional literature and find peer-reviewed research showing evidence one way or another. Typically, however, peer-reviewed research ALWAYS disagrees with the last study, because this is the funding mechanism for more research. Anyway, that is what my peer-reviewed research says.

How do we know that potatoes are not self-aware? This is the time for you Potatoes of CAF to rise and MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD! Aquinas maintained that potatoes have vegatative souls but a diligent search of all his writings that I can find (mainly glancing at a Forward of a book that I have not finished, not understood) indicates that the good doctor would, in fact, dispute the self-awareness of potatoes. But then potatoes had not been introduced into Europe in his time, so we simply do not know,

I have more than enough trouble with my own epistemology, let alone trying to cover that of our tubular friends.

We could take the two negatives I snuck into the sublime syllogism and recast this to make it more palatable to the keen and sharp logic of our new friend:
It is possible that potatoes are aware that they are potatoes
You, however, are aware that you are something of another species
Therefore the Mets will win the world series.
Click to expand...
It fell down somewhere around the third line. Hats off to Fezzik!:tiphat:

Where, Fezzik, did you learn logic? From a potato, perhaps? One sharp Idaho, I must say.
 
N0X3x said:
Proof of my non-potato-ness/hood:
  1. Tomyris’s logic is impenetrable. As a being who is unaware of being a potato, I am, in fact, a potato.
  2. I’ve seen, recognized, and been convinced by the infallible logic of this proof and have now become aware that I am actually a potato.
    3.Potatoes are not aware that they are potatoes.
  3. Ergo, since I am now aware of being a potato, I can’t possibly be a potato.
Click to expand...
reminds me of catch 22… did we consult Dan Quayle on this?
 
Tomyris said:
Not bad, for a potato. (Welcome and that was an Awesome Post!)

I would, actually, start off attacking the first premise, which some other Alert Reader picked up on, but did not really get to the Root of the thing (pun intended). Do we really know that potatoes are not self aware? I will confess that I did not diligently search the professional literature and find peer-reviewed research showing evidence one way or another. Typically, however, peer-reviewed research ALWAYS disagrees with the last study, because this is the funding mechanism for more research. Anyway, that is what my peer-reviewed research says.

How do we know that potatoes are not self-aware? This is the time for you Potatoes of CAF to rise and MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD! Aquinas maintained that potatoes have vegatative souls but a diligent search of all his writings that I can find (mainly glancing at a Forward of a book that I have not finished, not understood) indicates that the good doctor would, in fact, dispute the self-awareness of potatoes. But then potatoes had not been introduced into Europe in his time, so we simply do not know,

I have more than enough trouble with my own epistemology, let alone trying to cover that of our tubular friends.

We could take the two negatives I snuck into the sublime syllogism and recast this to make it more palatable to the keen and sharp logic of our new friend:

It fell down somewhere around the third line. Hats off to Fezzik!:tiphat:

Where, Fezzik, did you learn logic? From a potato, perhaps? One sharp Idaho, I must say.
Click to expand...
This IS a fun game!

I suppose we could have started with the first premise. I began with checking the validity of the syllogism because you began with a syllogism and a syllogism can be either valid or invalid, not true or false. If the logic had held up and the conclusion still appeared to be false, then I would have checked to make sure the terms were clear and the premises were true.

In Aristotle’s De Anima, he defined plants as having a Nutritive Soul which means that they can grow, eat, digest, and reproduce. Animals have a Sensitive Soul which includes the abilities of the Nutritive Soul but in addition it has sensation and locomotion. Only humans, according to Aristotle, have Intellectual Soul which in addition to the abilities of the Nutritive and Sensitive Souls can also think and understand. (At least that’s it in a nutshell as far as I recall) In that case, I would say that potatoes definitely do not have the ability to be aware.

Unfortunately, the compromise syllogism that you propose has more than three terms so it is invalid. Perhaps we could discuss the possibility of the Mets winning the World Series despite having their management and ownership in disarray.
 
Fezzik said:
This IS a fun game!

I suppose we could have started with the first premise. I began with checking the validity of the syllogism because you began with a syllogism and a syllogism can be either valid or invalid, not true or false. If the logic had held up and the conclusion still appeared to be false, then I would have checked to make sure the terms were clear and the premises were true.

In Aristotle’s De Anima, he defined plants as having a Nutritive Soul which means that they can grow, eat, digest, and reproduce. Animals have a Sensitive Soul which includes the abilities of the Nutritive Soul but in addition it has sensation and locomotion. Only humans, according to Aristotle, have Intellectual Soul which in addition to the abilities of the Nutritive and Sensitive Souls can also think and understand. (At least that’s it in a nutshell as far as I recall) In that case, I would say that potatoes definitely do not have the ability to be aware.

Unfortunately, the compromise syllogism that you propose has more than three terms so it is invalid. Perhaps we could discuss the possibility of the Mets winning the World Series despite having their management and ownership in disarray.
Click to expand...
Ah. A false premise: management and ownership improve the ability of a team to win,

You may perhaps recall that aside from marine biology Artistotle did little actual research. I doubt he snuck up on a tater and yelled “BOO!” to see if it would jump. Come to think of it, neither have I.

I am off to the kitchen. Hopefully I will NOT have to explain this to my husband.

Research report later…Non-peer reviewed…
 
Tomyris said:
Ah. A false premise: management and ownership improve the ability of a team to win,

You may perhaps recall that aside from marine biology Artistotle did little actual research. I doubt he snuck up on a tater and yelled “BOO!” to see if it would jump. Come to think of it, neither have I.

I am off to the kitchen. Hopefully I will NOT have to explain this to my husband.

Research report later…Non-peer reviewed…
Click to expand...
I did not do this experiment when it occurred to me they might have sensitive souls, which is the entire point of the investigation…Too sensitive…Perhaps they would rise against me…The Rise of the Potato…Woman killed by Enraged Taters…

Better safe than sorry. Our friends, the spuds…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top