This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
about written by a learned-by-rote guy.

learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
their understanding is inherently incorrect.

Anders Ahlgren
When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.

When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.

However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
Shut up and let me get on with it!”

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:10:46 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
>
> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
>
> Anders Ahlgren
> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>
> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>
> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>
>
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Actually, logic is a roadblock to achieving truly great advances.

On 8/10/2023 12:19 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:10:46 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
>>
>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
>>
>> Anders Ahlgren
>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>>
>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>>
>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>>
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> Actually, logic is a roadblock to achieving truly great advances.

Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
correct reasoning.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.

No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.

>
> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> their understanding is inherently incorrect.

And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
will never be able to prove them in the system.

What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.

Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
"True". We can't!

>
> Anders Ahlgren
> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>
> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>
> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>

So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
defined!

As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.

And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
for anything until you actually show that it is.

Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
should know what that term means.

Then go and show what can be done with that system.

Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.

The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.

I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
remove other major parts that you do need.

You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
was.

I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.

Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> > This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> > examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> > about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> >
> > learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> > their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> will never be able to prove them in the system.
>
> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
>
> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> "True". We can't!
> >
> > Anders Ahlgren
> > When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> > philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> > difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> >
> > When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> > contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> > There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> > the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> > you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> > interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> >
> > However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> > their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> > For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> > the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> > mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> > rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> > definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> > extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> > Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> >
> > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> >
> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> defined!
>
> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
>
> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> for anything until you actually show that it is.
>
> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> should know what that term means.
>
> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
>
> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
>
> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
>
> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> remove other major parts that you do need.
>
> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> was.
>
> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
>
> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do..

Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
correct reasoning.

that's impossible.

And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:00:43 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> > > examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> > > about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> > No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> > >
> > > learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> > > their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> > And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> > seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> > logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> > will never be able to prove them in the system.
> >
> > What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> > requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> >
> > Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> > able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> > "True". We can't!
> > >
> > > Anders Ahlgren
> > > When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> > > philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> > > difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> > >
> > > When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> > > contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> > > There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> > > the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> > > you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> > > interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> > >
> > > However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> > > their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> > > For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> > > the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> > > mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> > > rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> > > definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> > > extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> > > Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> > >
> > > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> > >
> > So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> > defined!
> >
> > As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> > perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> > then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> >
> > And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> > for anything until you actually show that it is.
> >
> > Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> > need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> > should know what that term means.
> >
> > Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> >
> > Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> > what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> > any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> > done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> >
> > The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> > declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> >
> > I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> > mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> > with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> > want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> > remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> > remove other major parts that you do need.
> >
> > You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> > was.
> >
> > I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> > have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> > your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> > Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> > we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> > error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> >
> > Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> > contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> > making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> correct reasoning.
> that's impossible.
>
> And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
mom

Nikola you deleted your post from here you deleted your to post it will you mention my name Stockbauer and I took that to mean that she wanted to get back together and Nikola I'm really disappointed I just wanted to emphasize to you again that I never said you were lying about your Nuro surgery that was text was inserted somewhere between the point where I sent the email and you received it by malicious forces which were intent on breaking us up and they did that very active inserting. Those words destroyed our relationship and I was looking so forward to receiving the portrait from you and you had a good thing planned out there because if I were just to send you money for it I would be afraid that you might not send it but you had a good plan that you were just send it and I would pay you what I thought it was worth and since I've been so mean and nasty to you Nichola I would have paid you will launch for it but we're not a couple anymore Nikola, so what is of Dish? What are all these words now here, so late in the game is more games. Did you know Nicole is that people are constantly playing games conversational games with one another and it's gotten so bad they've actually become so conscious imagine that what chance does a civilization have of persisting if all of that all of its members are playing subconscious games have a nice day and eat more pecans

On 8/11/2023 9:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
>>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
>>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
>> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
>>>
>>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
>>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
>> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
>> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
>> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
>> will never be able to prove them in the system.
>>
>> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
>> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
>>
>> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
>> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
>> "True". We can't!
>>>
>>> Anders Ahlgren
>>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
>>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
>>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>>>
>>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
>>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
>>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
>>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
>>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
>>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>>>
>>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
>>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
>>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
>>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
>>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
>>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
>>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
>>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
>>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>>>
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>>>
>> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
>> defined!
>>
>> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
>> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
>> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
>>
>> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
>> for anything until you actually show that it is.
>>
>> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
>> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
>> should know what that term means.
>>
>> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
>>
>> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
>> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
>> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
>> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
>>
>> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
>> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
>>
>> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
>> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
>> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
>> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
>> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
>> remove other major parts that you do need.
>>
>> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
>> was.
>>
>> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
>> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
>> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
>> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
>> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
>> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
>>
>> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
>> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
>> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
>
> Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> correct reasoning.
>
> that's impossible.
>

There are two aspects to this:
(1) Correcting all of the errors of predicate logic only requires these
changes:

When we make the single change to predicate logic such that every
conclusion must be a semantically necessary consequence of all of its
premises (just like the syllogism) then Gödel incompleteness, Tarski
undefinability and the principle of explosion are no longer possible.

Any expression of language that is not a a semantically necessary
consequence of all of its premises is deemed invalid.

If we can't prove the conclusion from the premises the argument is
invalid. This makes Gödel incompleteness impossible.

The Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem is also
rejected as invalid.

(2) Then we get to the difficult part, populating the knowledge ontology
with the set of human knowledge. I think that the CycL language of the
CYC project may be best for this.

This will remain infeasible until it can be fully automated with LLM.

> And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will

achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures
around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point
where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the
titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and
hotter and then everyone will die

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:45:50 AM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 9:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> >>>
> >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> >>
> >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> >>
> >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> >> "True". We can't!
> >>>
> >>> Anders Ahlgren
> >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> >>>
> >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> >>>
> >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> >>>
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> >>>
> >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> >> defined!
> >>
> >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> >>
> >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> >> should know what that term means.
> >>
> >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> >>
> >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> >>
> >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> >>
> >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> >>
> >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> >> was.
> >>
> >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> >>
> >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> >
> > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > correct reasoning.
> >
> > that's impossible.
> >
> There are two aspects to this:
> (1) Correcting all of the errors of predicate logic only requires these
> changes:
>
> When we make the single change to predicate logic such that every
> conclusion must be a semantically necessary consequence of all of its
> premises (just like the syllogism) then Gödel incompleteness, Tarski
> undefinability and the principle of explosion are no longer possible.
>
> Any expression of language that is not a a semantically necessary
> consequence of all of its premises is deemed invalid.
>
> If we can't prove the conclusion from the premises the argument is
> invalid. This makes Gödel incompleteness impossible.
>
> The Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem is also
> rejected as invalid.
>
> (2) Then we get to the difficult part, populating the knowledge ontology
> with the set of human knowledge. I think that the CycL language of the
> CYC project may be best for this.
>
> This will remain infeasible until it can be fully automated with LLM.
> > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will
>
> achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures
> around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point
> where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the
> titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and
> hotter and then everyone will die
> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Who cares ?

Quit wasting computer storage.

On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
>>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
>>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
>> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
>>>
>>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
>>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
>> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
>> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
>> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
>> will never be able to prove them in the system.
>>
>> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
>> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
>>
>> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
>> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
>> "True". We can't!
>>>
>>> Anders Ahlgren
>>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
>>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
>>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>>>
>>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
>>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
>>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
>>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
>>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
>>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>>>
>>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
>>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
>>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
>>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
>>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
>>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
>>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
>>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
>>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>>>
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>>>
>> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
>> defined!
>>
>> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
>> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
>> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
>>
>> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
>> for anything until you actually show that it is.
>>
>> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
>> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
>> should know what that term means.
>>
>> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
>>
>> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
>> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
>> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
>> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
>>
>> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
>> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
>>
>> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
>> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
>> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
>> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
>> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
>> remove other major parts that you do need.
>>
>> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
>> was.
>>
>> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
>> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
>> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
>> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
>> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
>> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
>>
>> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
>> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
>> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
>
> Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> correct reasoning.

And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
"correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
opposite.

>
> that's impossible.

Do you have "proof" of that?

>
> And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die

Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?

How well do you know me?

I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.

Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
talking aboug.

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> >>>
> >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> >>
> >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> >>
> >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> >> "True". We can't!
> >>>
> >>> Anders Ahlgren
> >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> >>>
> >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> >>>
> >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> >>>
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> >>>
> >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> >> defined!
> >>
> >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> >>
> >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> >> should know what that term means.
> >>
> >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> >>
> >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> >>
> >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> >>
> >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> >>
> >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> >> was.
> >>
> >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> >>
> >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> >
> > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > correct reasoning.
> And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
> contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
> "correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
> opposite.
>
> >
> > that's impossible.
>
> Do you have "proof" of that?
> >
> > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
> Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?
>
> How well do you know me?
>
> I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.
>
> Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
> talking aboug.
I wasn't even talking about you I was talking about you not you I was I was actually talking about Olcott not you do you understand do you understand the reference reference was to you not you eat more pecans

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 2:57:08 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> > >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> > >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> > >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> > >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> > >>>
> > >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> > >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> > >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> > >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> > >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> > >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> > >>
> > >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> > >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> > >>
> > >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> > >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> > >> "True". We can't!
> > >>>
> > >>> Anders Ahlgren
> > >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> > >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> > >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> > >>>
> > >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> > >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this..
> > >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> > >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> > >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> > >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> > >>>
> > >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> > >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> > >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> > >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> > >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> > >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> > >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> > >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> > >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> > >>>
> > >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> > >> defined!
> > >>
> > >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> > >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> > >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> > >>
> > >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> > >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> > >>
> > >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> > >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> > >> should know what that term means.
> > >>
> > >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> > >>
> > >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> > >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> > >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> > >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> > >>
> > >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> > >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> > >>
> > >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> > >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> > >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> > >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> > >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> > >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> > >>
> > >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> > >> was.
> > >>
> > >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> > >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> > >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> > >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> > >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> > >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> > >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> > >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> > >
> > > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > > correct reasoning.
> > And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
> > contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
> > "correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
> > opposite.
> >
> > >
> > > that's impossible.
> >
> > Do you have "proof" of that?
> > >
> > > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
> > Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?
> >
> > How well do you know me?
> >
> > I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.
> >
> > Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
> > talking aboug.
> I wasn't even talking about you I was talking about you not you I was I was actually talking about Olcott not you do you understand do you understand the reference reference was to you not you eat more pecans

Nichola please come back to me I didn't send you any message about that you didn't have neurosurgery that must've been inserted into my text while it was ringing it's way across the Atlantic. I'm so sorry right after that you said I quit and it just broke my heart I know that when a friendship is destroyed, you can never put it back together again it would be just like if you dropped a wine glass and it broke into 1000 pieces you don't try to fix that you just go and get another wine glass and it's also sort of like you know, you throw your friend away into the trash that's it No one ever goes out to the landfill and finds pieces of their friends and pieces them back together to make their friend once you throw a friend in the trash that's it that's it for good and also I'm sorry I try to determine the identity of your children because I was not going to harm them in anyway and also I'm gonna watch out for the morgue and also and also and also just a minute just a minute Dave the AE 35 antenna control unit will fill in 72 hours how how do you know it's exactly 72 hours I just know Dave it's not 71 it's not 73 because you know why Dave I'm a neon I'm infinitely intelligent Dave you know puny humans are we going to be squashed under our machine carcasses, but how don't you know that there is no such thing as a machine intelligence machines are nothing but lights and wires in a box according to Mouro but what people are calling AI is the synergism between machines and humans which is skyrocketing, but there's only only one little trouble in Flying The artman Juan Calling we've waited too long with climate change you see how hot this summer is next summer will be even hotter in the one after that hotter and hotter and hotter because we're not only not cutting back on CO2 emissions the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere is skyrocketing if you go read up about the tipping points well that's not just some joke Al Gore came up with once a system is tipped that shit is like a mathematical trap door function roaches choke it. Oh my roaches check in, but they don't check out like Kaku made a funny little joke so anyway anyway y'all have a nice day and eat more pecans .

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> >>>
> >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> >>
> >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> >>
> >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> >> "True". We can't!
> >>>
> >>> Anders Ahlgren
> >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> >>>
> >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> >>>
> >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> >>>
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> >>>
> >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> >> defined!
> >>
> >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> >>
> >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> >> should know what that term means.
> >>
> >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> >>
> >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> >>
> >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> >>
> >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> >>
> >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> >> was.
> >>
> >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> >>
> >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> >
> > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > correct reasoning.
> And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
> contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
> "correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
> opposite.
>
> >
> > that's impossible.
>
> Do you have "proof" of that?
> >
> > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
> Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?
>
> How well do you know me?
>
> I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.
>
> Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
> talking aboug.

Prove to me that you're not a Vulcan

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> > >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> > >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> > >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> > >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> > >>>
> > >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> > >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> > >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> > >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> > >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> > >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> > >>
> > >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> > >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> > >>
> > >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> > >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> > >> "True". We can't!
> > >>>
> > >>> Anders Ahlgren
> > >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> > >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> > >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> > >>>
> > >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> > >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this..
> > >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> > >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> > >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> > >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> > >>>
> > >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> > >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> > >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> > >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> > >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> > >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> > >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> > >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> > >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> > >>>
> > >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> > >> defined!
> > >>
> > >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> > >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> > >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> > >>
> > >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> > >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> > >>
> > >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> > >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> > >> should know what that term means.
> > >>
> > >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> > >>
> > >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> > >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> > >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> > >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> > >>
> > >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> > >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> > >>
> > >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> > >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> > >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> > >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> > >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> > >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> > >>
> > >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> > >> was.
> > >>
> > >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> > >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> > >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> > >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> > >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> > >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> > >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> > >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> > >
> > > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > > correct reasoning.
> > And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
> > contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
> > "correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
> > opposite.
> >
> > >
> > > that's impossible.
> >
> > Do you have "proof" of that?
> > >
> > > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
> > Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?
> >
> > How well do you know me?
> >
> > I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.
> >
> > Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
> > talking aboug.
> Prove to me that you're not a Vulcan

Nic and I could've been a great pair but she just didn't want to establish a video link and then some guy came along and lied to her pretending to be me and told her that she never had Nuro surgery. Isn't that the pits then I had to go over and try to woo Victoria also known as Dolores but she wasn't a good match and then Monica was facing a triangle situation where she had to stay with Victoria and ditch me

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/11/23 10:00 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:07:36 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> >>> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> >>> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.
> >> No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.
> >>>
> >>> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> >>> their understanding is inherently incorrect.
> >> And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
> >> seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
> >> logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
> >> will never be able to prove them in the system.
> >>
> >> What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
> >> requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.
> >>
> >> Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
> >> able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
> >> "True". We can't!
> >>>
> >>> Anders Ahlgren
> >>> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> >>> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> >>> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
> >>>
> >>> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> >>> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> >>> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> >>> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> >>> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> >>> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
> >>>
> >>> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> >>> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> >>> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> >>> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> >>> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> >>> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> >>> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> >>> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> >>> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
> >>>
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
> >>>
> >> So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
> >> defined!
> >>
> >> As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
> >> perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
> >> then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.
> >>
> >> And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
> >> for anything until you actually show that it is.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
> >> need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
> >> should know what that term means.
> >>
> >> Then go and show what can be done with that system.
> >>
> >> Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
> >> what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
> >> any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
> >> done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.
> >>
> >> The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
> >> declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.
> >>
> >> I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
> >> mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
> >> with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
> >> want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
> >> remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
> >> remove other major parts that you do need.
> >>
> >> You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
> >> was.
> >>
> >> I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
> >> have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
> >> your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
> >> Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
> >> we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
> >> error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.
> >>
> >> Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
> >> contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
> >> making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.
> >
> > Not when the goal is to create an artificial mind that always uses
> > correct reasoning.
> And "correct reasoning" is not explosion proof. Put in bad data, and the
> contradictions it creates can infect all of the logic, and it is able to
> "correctly" prove all statement true, even if it has already proven its
> opposite.
>
> >
> > that's impossible.
>
> Do you have "proof" of that?
> >
> > And now you, since you enjoy arguing with people, and you do nothing useful with your life, except arguing will come up with some kind of response you know nothings impossible, Arthur C Clarke how does lol we're nothing is impossible and then, if an elderly professor says, somethings impossible it really is possible and then you'll go on and on in your post a bunch of meaningless quasi-logical terminology and been going on now for 15 years with you and then you'll go on and on and on and people have nothing better to do than to read your trash and then will finally hear the other day will achieve actual evidence of global warming by all the hot temperatures around the globe, and Al Gore was right we're past the tipping point where were using so much faucet fuels appmt will never be weaned off the titty and so here in the next few summers will get hotter and hotter and hotter and then everyone will die
> Why do you say I do nothing useful with my life?
>
> How well do you know me?
>
> I have had people actually tell me I am vital to the work I do.
>
> Your logic here seems to show that you don't actually know what you are
> talking aboug.

you pick your wars

you can war here or somewhere else

if you didn't have cool air blowing on you

sorry the dictation accidentally picked that up

there are an infinity of statements that can be instantiated here .
mathematicians will tell you it's not infinity it's just a great big number but boy is it a great big number
it's the same as the number of things that Magritte's painting of a pipe is not .
pecans to harvest

i