Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

[Age]

logik is smart, don't know if he's a genius, but above average at least

Yes I KNOW this is what "logik" keeps reiterating.

This is a lie. I will re-iterate it for you again to assure you: I am not smart.

Okay I am assured that "logik" is NOT smart.

If that is what you want me/us to KNOW, then KNOW it is agreed with, by me, anyway.

Why do yo believe that I am smart?

The very post before this one you wrote: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.

So, you acknowledge (and accept?) that I do NOT have beliefs, yet one post later you write: Why do you BELIEVE ...?

[Logik]

Okay I am assured that "logik" is NOT smart.

If that is what you want me/us to KNOW, then KNOW it is agreed with, by me, anyway.

Exactly.

Yesterday you BELIEVED that I am smart.
Today you KNOW that I am not.

The very post before this one you wrote: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.

So, you acknowledge (and accept?) that I do NOT have beliefs, yet one post later you write: Why do you BELIEVE ...?

No. You are mistaken.

Prior to today's interaction I believed that you have no beliefs.
Posterior to our interaction I believe that you have beliefs.

You BELIEVED that I am smart. I am not.

You mistook your belief for knowledge.

[attofishpi]

The 'Entity' that you are referring to is NO different than the One I talk about."

OK. Will you partake in a little experiment of mine?

I am not ignoring the rest of your points with regards to mine and will address them later

What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.
2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-

[11011]

hmmmmmm

i could be way off base but what i think age and atto are saying is that by calling yourself 'logik' you are insinuating you are smart and wanting others to think so - you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition - with which i incidentally agree - and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

basically, that you think and want others to think you are smart on here but are making a modest show of it when confronted. btw, are you Scandinavian?

[Logik]

i could be way off base but what i think age and atto are saying is that by calling yourself 'logik' you are insinuating you are smart and wanting others to think so.

By calling myself "Logik" I want you to think that I am logical and that I understand how logic works.
I know and do understand how logic works.

Does being logical make me "smart"?

It's just a skill - anybody can learn it.

- you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition

I did.

and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

No, it isn't.

basically, that you think and want others to think you are smart on here but are making a modest show of it when confronted.

I want you to think that I understand logic. "Smart" is your word - I don't understand what it means.

btw, are you Scandinavian?

No.

[attofishpi]

i could be way off base but what i think age and atto are saying is that by calling yourself 'logik' you are insinuating you are smart and wanting others to think so.

By calling myself "Logik" I want you to think that I am logical and that I understand how logic works.
I know and do understand how logic works.

Ya, not sure why 11011 brought me into the 'logic\k' debate as to whether you are smart...thought that was you and Age banging on. (nuffin to do wiv me - I have no doubt you are poorly dressed, but very intelligent.)

[11011]

logic is a kind of prediction based on cause-effect or associative occurrences which are themselves based on pattern recognition in our world.

for example, if you get good grades then you will get into a good college is a logical statement based on recognizing the pattern or association of people in the world getting good grades and subsequently being admitted into good colleges. logic is just the mind articulating the pattern it sees.

and if logic is based on pattern recognition, then it is a form of intelligence, to the extent that intelligence is pattern recognition, and this logical statement is also based on pattern recognition as well using abstract predictive categories.

in other words, the categorization of things is itself a form of pattern recognition (we put these things in the same category because they predictably behave the same, i.e. there is a pattern among the behaviour or appearance of these things therefore they are similar and belong in the same category)

and logic, at least 'if, then' logic which is often used in for example computer science and many other applications, consists basically of predictive statements based on abstract categories - if it belongs in this category, then it is also this, i.e. we can expect this to occur also based on predictive pattern recognition among things in this category - which are formed using pattern recognition.

that's a bit convolutedly put together, but do you see the connection? logic is basically just a formalization/articulation of pattern recognition in the behaviour of things, although it depends on the proper categorization (abstraction) of things as well as accurate recognition of the pattern (i.e. is there really a consistent pattern/universal law at work here). some things only behaviour as observed some of the time, and this can weaken the predictive power of logic, or 'truth'

[Age]

That all depends on how YOU define the word 'smart' here.

I don't know - it's your word. You are calling me "smart"... I don't know what you mean.

But did I call you smart?

I was saying that gauging from what you have informed us all of here you must be a very smart person. This statement was based on what you are portraying yourself to be and what you are coming across as in your own words.

As for you being able to see errors in reasoning, as you have portrayed, as being "smart" and that you have had lots of practice at this "seeing errors in reasoning", just remember that that was "your" ASSUMPTION and "your" CONCLUSION, of which ONLY "you" arrived at.

Besides the fact that you have yet to SHOW an error in my reasoning, I have pointed out and SHOWN many errors in YOUR reasoning.

If you believe otherwise, then point out the errors in my reasoning, and let us SEE how many agree with you?

Also, if you do NOT know what I mean, then WHY did you re-iterate that you are NOT "smart" (whatever "smart" may be to YOU)?

Define it!

What?

One might say that that is VERY smart of you to finally recognize and accept what another has been saying and continues to say.

One might say that recognize one's past mistakes is just self-awareness. Why is that "smart" ?

I did NOT say that 'that', which one might say, was smart.

If you actually recognize your past mistakes or not, will be SEEN. One usually does NOT make the same mistake again, unless of course they have forgotten, but will accept and admit that they have made the same mistake again.

'THAT' whatever you like to portray and which comes across to "others".

What is that which I portray and comes across to you?

That, what you have portrayed and comes across to me is; You like to tell us what you do, that you are superior to others, and that what you do has some sort of importance in Life over what others do.

For example you like it be known:

That you are doing a "masters thesis".
That you like to undermine "logicians" and "mathematicians".
That you are producing work that your supervisor says could easily translate into a PhD thesis.
That you work full-time while you are also studying but you still have time for "amusement" here, in this forum.
That your full-time work is ahead of academia by a few decades.
That you believe academia offers absolute no new insight.
That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.
That institutions should be paying YOU (capital letters) for your insights.
That you have made a mistake in becoming a student, which some might infer that you believe that you are already beyond 'that' what is being taught.
That you are a self-taught person.

Plus other things.

And this portraying by you, is what you have SHOWN to me, was just in two of your posts only.

[Logik]

But did I call you smart?

I was saying that gauging from what you have informed us all of here you must be a very smart person.

This statement was based on what you are portraying yourself to be and what you are coming across as in your own words.

But I never said I am smart. That must be your own conclusion. Your belief then?

For example you like it be known:

That you are doing a "masters thesis".
That you like to undermine "logicians" and "mathematicians".
That you are producing work that your supervisor says could easily translate into a PhD thesis.
That you work full-time while you are also studying but you still have time for "amusement" here, in this forum.
That your full-time work is ahead of academia by a few decades.
That you believe academia offers absolute no new insight.
That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.
That institutions should be paying YOU (capital letters) for your insights.
That you have made a mistake in becoming a student, which some might infer that you believe that you are already beyond 'that' what is being taught.
That you are a self-taught person.

Plus other things.

And this portraying by you, is what you have SHOWN to me, was just in two of your posts only.

And? I have experience and knowledge and I speak truthfully. Why does that make me "smart" ?

[Age]

Okay I am assured that "logik" is NOT smart.

If that is what you want me/us to KNOW, then KNOW it is agreed with, by me, anyway.

Exactly.

Yesterday you BELIEVED that I am smart.

But I did NOT believe that you were smart yesterday. That is your ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF.

Today you KNOW that I am not.

But today I do NOT know that. You either really do NOT read what I write or you completely misunderstand/misinterpret what I write.

The very post before this one you wrote: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.

So, you acknowledge (and accept?) that I do NOT have beliefs, yet one post later you write: Why do you BELIEVE ...?

No. You are mistaken.

Prior to today's interaction I believed that you have no beliefs.
Posterior to our interaction I believe that you have beliefs.

Well you BELIEVED WRONG, once again.

You BELIEVED that I am smart. I am not.

But I NEVER believed this, EVER. In fact, if I recall correctly I have NEVER even THOUGHT that you were smart.

You mistook your belief for knowledge.

I do NOT have BELIEFS. Therefore, I do NOT believe any thing EVER. If I do NOT have a belief, then I can NOT mistake a belief. So, I could NOT do what you are proposing here.

You completely do NOT understand what I write, regarding BELIEFS.

This is BECAUSE of YOUR own WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and ill-gotten BELIEFS.

[Logik]

Okay I am assured that "logik" is NOT smart.

If that is what you want me/us to KNOW, then KNOW it is agreed with, by me, anyway.

Exactly.

Yesterday you BELIEVED that I am smart.

But I did NOT believe that you were smart yesterday. That is your ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF.

Today you KNOW that I am not.

But today I do NOT know that. You either really do NOT read what I write or you completely misunderstand/misinterpret what I write.

The very post before this one you wrote: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.

So, you acknowledge (and accept?) that I do NOT have beliefs, yet one post later you write: Why do you BELIEVE ...?

No. You are mistaken.

Prior to today's interaction I believed that you have no beliefs.
Posterior to our interaction I believe that you have beliefs.

Well you BELIEVED WRONG, once again.

You BELIEVED that I am smart. I am not.

But I NEVER believed this, EVER. In fact, if I recall correctly I have NEVER even THOUGHT that you were smart.

You mistook your belief for knowledge.

I do NOT have BELIEFS. Therefore, I do NOT believe any thing EVER. If I do NOT have a belief, then I can NOT mistake a belief. So, I could NOT do what you are proposing here.

You completely do NOT understand what I write, regarding BELIEFS.

This is BECAUSE of YOUR own WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and ill-gotten BELIEFS.

Shame. It must be hard coming to terms with the fact that you have beliefs.

[Age]

The 'Entity' that you are referring to is NO different than the One I talk about."

OK. Will you partake in a little experiment of mine?

YES.

I am not ignoring the rest of your points with regards to mine and will address them later

Fair enough.

What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.

Okay.

2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-

Okay.

There is NO 'your' in relation to inner sight. There is in-sight, which comes from with-in, and can SEE ALL or the Truth of things. But there is NO 'thing' that has/owns 'in-ner-sight'. The 'Entity' is the inner-sight and/or the One that can SEE ALL.

[Age]

hmmmmmm

i could be way off base but what i think age and atto are saying is that by calling yourself 'logik' you are insinuating you are smart and wanting others to think so

You are not that far off base at all, from me anyway. I would just add though that what gets insinuated is not just in the 'label' but also in the very words often used. As just exampled in my earlier post.

- you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition - with which i incidentally agree - and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

basically, that you think and want others to think you are smart on here but are making a modest show of it when confronted. btw, are you Scandinavian?

[11011]

logik you're kind of autistic. age is basically calling you arrogant, using 'you think you're smart' as a proxy, but you're too autistic to pick up on this implication and so you're getting all literal on his ass 'when did i say i'm smart; show me a word search'...etc

anyway, can we get back to philosophy? i always thought philosophers were above human drama because of how pointless it is.

unless tangible gain is involved, if you accuse someone of something and it starts a battle of denial, it doesn't make sense to say even another word, because you're either dealing with an egotistical or an autistic

plus, there are so many arrogant people on the internet, mostly benign, that i'm practically desensitized to it. i just chuckle and don't even really judge the person. it's often just an alter ego, or catharsis of daily repressed thoughts/feelings toward fellow man

[11011]

oh ya i forgot, logik your thoughts on my post: logic vs pattern recognition?

since you seem well versed in logic (sincere)