Principle of Charity ⇔ Axiom of Unrestricted comprehension

[Skepdick]

I am just here, in this forum, to use people like you, so that I can learn from them.

People on this forum already know this.

Great, so hopefully I will NOT have to remind them again. But somehow I think this might not be the case, especially considering that you can NOT accurately speak for ALL of the people, on this forum

The way you are going about it is exhausting to the person you are trying to learn from.

Who cares? I do not.

I am using you for my purpose and benefit, not for yours.

I think you might also still be very confused about what it IS EXACTLY that I want to learn, and am learning.

To make it clear, what I am gaining and learning from you is certainly NOT necessarily what you are hoping "others" will learn and obtain from you.

For you show absolutely no signs of learning,

That is from your perspective.

But from perspective I am learning enough. You, however, would NOT be aware of what I am actually learning because there is NOTHING I want to SHOW in this forum, in this regard.

Do you remember WHY I want to learn?

It is especially NOT for this forum, so I am NOT showing what I am learning and discovering from you.

Also, what I am learning is NOT what you want to teach. Just about all of what you are expressing is of NO real importance to any thing, anyway.

and so investing any time in you seems to be time wasted.

So then you 'should' KNOW by now what to do, especially considering just how much time you have spend, and wasted, with me here.

I have found interacting with 'you', "under any of your many names", very enlightening, and thus very rewarding. You have provided a great deal of evidence for me, so I thank you profusely for that. Although you are still NOT getting any monetary reward.

By the way almost all of what you say is nothing new, and so there is nothing really to learn there anyway.

If you do not gain anything when discussing with me, and so investing your time really is a waste of time for you, then do you KNOW what to do by now?

Your act is not fooling anybody anymore, so why act?

What do you believe my "act" is exactly?

When do you believe that I have been fooling you, and when do you believe that I am not fooling 'anybody' any more?

When did you realise that I was "acting" and that my so called "act" was not fooling you any more?

Was it WHEN I told you my real intentions for being here in this forum?

If yes, then from the outset my real intentions has NOT changed, which can be SEEN in my writings.

If no, then WHEN EXACTLY did you realise that I was "acting" and that my so called "act" was not fooling you any more?

As with all rules there are exceptions.

It is clear now, for all readers, that any charity is wasted upon Age.

And in the spirit of assuming the worst, I guess it's fair to call Age a parasite.

[FlashDangerpants]

Or it may be the other way round, and formal logic can be seen as an attempt to recreate what is largely natural and common sense in a manner that suits the psychological needs of some subeset of humanity that cannot cope with ambiguity very well or else has domain specific needs for certain levels of precision. Thus you get yourselves all bound up worrying about various paradoxes that are creations of the strict logics you imprison yourself within, and then escape those with silly ideas about contradictions being valid and sound (even though they make a mockery of validity and soundness).

Do you not see the irony in all this? To "cope with ambiguity" is precisely the ability to overlook contradictions! Ambiguity in syntax, grammar and semantics is what causes contradictions. Language is ambiguous.

Formal logic is merely a tool to study language by idealising it. In that regard it has inherited all of language's problems. The most serious error of all being treating language as ontological.

The point from all this: If a precise formal language cannot escape contradictions/paradoxes then an imprecise language can't avoid them either! Contradictions are part of language and our brains do an amazing job at sweeping all that stuff under the carpet.

Not actually ironic, sort of part of my point. Although ambiguity is only one source of contradictions, and I'm not sure it's the most important, I certainly see no reason why we should limit oursleves to that one alone.

When we find contradictions within the evidence a witness presents to a court, we don't blame it all on the vaguaries of some picture model of language, and we don't call Aristotle a fool and just the guy be innocent AND guilty, instead we seek to resolve the contradictions. This seems like the better option in my humbles. It is thus with the vast majority of philosophical argument also.

When you engage in formal logic, and all the propositions a merely asserting P or not P, it might make every possible bit of sense there to just assume true contradiction in pursuit of some locally desirable meta-logic that skips the dirty business of resolution. But the rest of us have contexts, we aren't asserting some hyper neutral P.

You have created a special tool to get yourself out of holes that only persons using your other broken tools could ever end up in, and now you are telling me I have to use that tool for a problem I don't have.

Obviously, a problem overlooked is a problem not had!

The broken tool is Language itself. Logic is a tool created to study the broken tool. And you "don't have that problem" because you are intuitively using para-consistent logic, not a strict consistent logic.

You are more tolerant of contradictions than you claim to be - you actually ignore very many of them. Consciously or subconsciously - I can't possibly know that.

Some contradictions are immaterial, I try to only take an interest in the ones that affect an outcome, I assume I make mistakes in this regard sometimes.

Some pursue weak contradictions for deflective purposes - a favourite tactic of Immanuel Can for instance, who once took immense umbrage at my use of the phrase 'culture wars', mysteriously failing to ever notice the sentence within which it had beeen written... apparently it's not an actual war, and not cultural enough for him. A more common use of immaterial contradictions by far would be Veggie's obsessive 'whataboutism', whereby no point ever presented by any American is ever valid, because of some bombs their country dropped on the Middle East.

But there are other contradictions I don't need to deal with because they genuinely aren't my problem. Russell's Paradox is absolutely not an issue for me, I have never once worried about whether 1+1 can be proven to equal 2, it's tautologous, so I don't need special tools to deal with any contradictions that formal logic arrives when it attempts to prove that tautological information is true.

Contradictory statements are not in agreement with each other.

English is para-consistent, it's not contradiction-free so your claim above is an uninteresting dichotomy.

Dichotomy? I was simply explaining why there is no choice in the matter of whether contradictory statements are disagreeing with each other.

If you don't agree with me, contradict away, and see if it helps.

Obviously it's not going to help, but that's hardly the point.

Am I really contradicting you or am I merely pointing out that you contradict yourself?
And it was your own claim that "If you can't agree with yourself why should I agree with you?", so I can trivially dismiss you then?

I know that I can trivially force you into contradicting yourself by engineering a question that (if answered) will lead to a contradiction. And so goes the game...
I know that I can do this on command. By the principle of charity - I assume you know this too.

Am I being too charitable in assuming this, or is this one of those *wink*wink* *secret handshake* moments?

You can tell me I am contradicting myself if you want, but this is a show-don't-tell sort of game. I might have given myself an out with the materiality angle anyway. Otherwise I might have screwed up royally, which is always fun.

You can sort of force me to contradict myself within some artificial logic game where the rules require me to accept some self evidently absurd proposition, but the prize might not impress. The most likely outcome would be that I would cheerfully accept that because not all anteaters are named Keith, therefore Age is the smartest guy I have ever met. I will absolutely let you have one of those if that's the direction we're headed in.

I think you have proven less than you have convinced yourself of. I have noticed that you have a vendetta against the LNC for some while, but it wasn't of great interest to me as I am not bound up in formal logic.

See... The above is a contradiction from where I am standing, but instead of flat out dismissing you i can simply say this.

You may not be bound by a formal logic, but you are bound by a logic or logics (that you aren't aware of). And you seem unaware whether the logic you are bound by is consistent, para-consistent or dialethistic (and perhaps you don't even know what the difference is).

My vendetta is not against the LNC. It's against its (mis?)interpretation. At the very least you have chosen to bind yourself by the LNC itself, and a contradiction means different things in different logic-systems. There is more than one way to interpret and react to that which has been defined as a contradiction.

Sometimes I am clumsy, and invariably if you stick with it I will run out of steam if you are persistent (offer not available to anybody I have some burning desire to annoy), so you might be able to make that stick, at least against me. But I am just a stand-in here. To properly test your claim you would need to find a decent ordinary language philosopher to take this up with, somebody who is winging it less than I do.

I guess if I am to give it a go, the gist would be that the public shared concept of contradiction, consistency and so on are not really something that can be contained by something like ∼(A&∼A) or any variation thereof. These concepts are defined and constrained entirely by how they are used in living discourse. Where we find common language unsuited for our technical use cases, we often find ways to devise terms of art that express wildly different ideas to those of our wider shared language. But in truth, when you try to explain them, you will be frustrated by their lack of applicability beyond the boundaries of that language game. It's always fun to try though.

If I am dumb enough to allow you to impose some theory of language derived from MIT's comp-sci labs, that first assumption might work for you. Otherwise, it looks overambitious.

I am not imposing anything. I am pointing out that the choice exists for you.

Interpret any argument weakly and contradictions disappear.
Interpret any argument strictly and contradictions appear.

If you were smart enough you would recognize that. Hence my claim "if you choose to be persuaded - then you will be."

(Mis?)interpretation reduces to choice.

Yeah, my ego isn't particularly fragile so the if your'e smart enough line is more one to fling at Handjob7.

I think my current point is that the choice you prescribe is a mirage. I could choose to immerse myself in formal logic and adopt the conventions of language that allow P and not P to contradict without conflict in that context, but if I then try to make that understood in natural language, I would run into the emergency contradiction that I could only say such a thing if it were untrue.

The second looks absurd, are you about to do a 1 = 0 routine on me?

Now look who's blurring the lines between precise formalisms and language

Give me an ambiguity and I will give you a contradiction. And the "=" sign is very ambiguous in Mathematics.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality#DifferentKinds

What seems "absurd" to you reduces to your own conception of "sufficient proof". I can prove 1=0 via ex falso quodlibet .
It doesn't mean you will accept my proof, even though the LNC compels you to.

Which, once again, demonstrates that persuasion is more about understanding your interlocutor's interpretation, than understanding your own argument.

I'm sure you can prove that 1=0, but this does not contradict my position. The real trick is to do this with something other than maths or formal logic, as I have consistely assumed you can do such things in those contexts.

I think you have taken my reference to persuasion a little too much to heart. A philosophical arg should have persuasive power in the sense that if some propositions are true, then a consequence is true, , and some stuff is thereby shown to be the case, while other stuff is shown not to be the case.

Ok, but it's not clear why any such argument ought to persuade me. There are any number of premises which can lead to the exact same conclusions/consequence from all sorts of varying premises.

And it's not exactly clear to me who, where or how it has been mandated that one MUST start with premises then arrive at conclusions, and why it shouldn't be done the other way around.

This is exactly why I pointed to reverse mathematics/comprehension. Start with true conclusions then seek true premises. It's how justification works, and it is also how pragmatists think. I need not justify my desires - I need only articulate them to others.

In fact (and in so far as I can tell)

From Premises to Conclusions is the way epistemic foundationalists think (e.g Mathematicians)
From Conclusions to Premises is the way epistemic coherentists think (e.g Reverse Mathematicians)

Premise and conclusion is a conceptual relationship that involves a very important instance of of "therefore". If that last thing is needed for the argument then writing them in reverse order seems to make little difference to me, but I am happy to see examples.

Investigation from true conclusion to true premise is I am sure a very useful idea, however the entire religion subforum is dominated by people who think they are doing exactly that. The atheists then argue their impossible to prove case in terms that other atheists find highly persuasive, while the various God botherers prove exactly the opposite with identically impressive results.

Beyond tautologies, I'm not sure how many strictly true conclusions are to be found that somehow need supporting argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am using you for my purpose and benefit, not for yours.

That's a profoundly creepy thing to write.

[Age]

I am using you for my purpose and benefit, not for yours.

That's a profoundly creepy thing to write.

And it was written that way for a very specific reason and purpose.

That is; To show 'future', relative to 'you' responders, readers how the people's in the 'olden days' would just NOT stop interpreting and assuming things. It would not matter how times I would write it is much better (quicker, simpler, and easier) to ask for clarity BEFORE assuming any thing, the peoples of those days just would carry on misinterpreting and wrongly assuming things.

If you see what I wrote as being profoundly creepy, then that is EXACTLY what I wanted you to SEE, that is; IF an assumption/interpretation was made BEFORE clarity was asked for.

But, for example, IF a clarifying question was asked INSTEAD OF an interpretation or assumption was made, then the actual and real Truth of what I am saying and meaning could be so quickly, easily, and simply attained, and thus much better understood.

The Truth is my True behaviours and intentions could be for the well being and good of and for EVERY one, but if my words keep getting interpreted, charitably or not, then they can all to quickly get misinterpreted as well. Just like I have been pointing out.

See, the trouble that 'you', adult human beings, really have is that what you all to quickly see as the behaviours and intentions in "others" is really just your OWN behaviours and intentions. So, until you clarify with "another", then you really never know their true intentions and behaviours.

[surreptitious57]

I am NOT here in this forum to learn how to communicate better with you ones here in this forum at all

But you are already communicating better with me [ I cannot speak for others ] here in this forum
And so even if it is not what you want to do here it is in part [ with me ] what you are doing here

[surreptitious57]

And it was written that way for a very specific reason and purpose

To show future relative to you responders readers how the peoples in the olden days would just NOT stop interpreting and assuming things

So do you think that future generations will no longer think like human beings do today
And if you do then what is going to be the specific reason or reasons why this will be so

[Age]

I am NOT here in this forum to learn how to communicate better with you ones here in this forum at all

But you are already communicating better with me [ I cannot speak for others ] here in this forum
And so even if it is not what you want to do here it is in part [ with me ] what you are doing here

Okay.

But I still have FAR MORE to learn.

[Age]

And it was written that way for a very specific reason and purpose

To show future relative to you responders readers how the peoples in the olden days would just NOT stop interpreting and assuming things

So do you think that future generations will no longer think like human beings do today

Yes.

But to be able to answer this more correctly, what exactly do you mean with the word 'like' here?

And if you do then what is going to be the specific reason or reasons why this will be so

Change, firstly. NO one generation of human beings has ever thought 'like' previous human beings, from one sense. But, from another sense, human beings have always thought 'like' they have.

The other reason is when 'you', human beings, learn a whole new way of thinking (that is; just looking at and seeing things differently), then human beings will not be thinking 'like' they do, in the days of when this is written.

Also, if, if in the future, those 'human beings' are still actually called 'human beings', or if they have evolved so much that they look at the peoples of these days, when this is written, as being so different that they have changed their name away from 'the human being', just like the human beings, of this day and age when this is written, have changed their name away from 'the apes'. The future readers may see that evolution has gone so far further, then a name change seemed necessary. This will just have to wait to be seen.

[surreptitious57]

But to be able to answer this more correctly what exactly do you mean with the word like here

Anything negative with regard to the way human beings think such as for example ignorance or prejudice
Also when human beings express an opinion as if it were a fact because they hold it to be absolutely true

[surreptitious57]

Also if in the future those human beings are still actually called human beings or if they have evolved so much that they look at the peoples
of these days when this is written as being so different that they have changed their name away from the human being just like the human
beings of this day and age when this is written have changed their name away from the apes

In the future machines may be the dominant species on the planet just like human beings are now
And also the human beings of the future may be more machine like than the human beings of today

[Age]

But to be able to answer this more correctly what exactly do you mean with the word like here

Anything negative with regard to the way human beings think such as for example ignorance or prejudice

Yes this will change, for the better.

Also when human beings express an opinion as if it were a fact because they hold it to be absolutely true

Yes, and when this changes, like I said, the words 'human beings' might only be used to refer to the old, primitive peoples, like the words 'cave man' and 'neanderthal' is used now, when this is written, to refer to 'a very old way of thinking' peoples also.

[Age]

Also if in the future those human beings are still actually called human beings or if they have evolved so much that they look at the peoples
of these days when this is written as being so different that they have changed their name away from the human being just like the human
beings of this day and age when this is written have changed their name away from the apes

In the future machines may be the dominant species on the planet just like human beings are now

Yes very true, and IF that is allowed to happen, then that just shows how more stupid human beings really are than they were intelligent.

And also the human beings of the future may be more machine like than the human beings of today

And if this happens, then "their" name, as I was saying, might change also, just like the names current human beings use about different stages of peoples throughout the human being evolutionary "progress".

I use that term lightly. If any stage of human being allows themselves to be taken over by a species that they themselves created, then, to me, that is NOT real progress at all.

[Eodnhoj7]

Conclusion - Human beings do not need money to live.

Obviously. Humans lived long before money was invented. Money is just a token of value.

See how instead of 'interpreting', which is just ASSUMING, what I am saying, and instead just LOOKING FOR the Truth in it, then how QUICKLY, EASILY, and SIMPLY the actual and real Truth of things can be found and discovered?.

Although you say 'obviously', and it is absolutely obvious when you are OPEN, most adult human beings do NOT believe it is true, and thus are not at all open to even consider this seemingly absurd and contradictory proposition or statement to them.

Conclusion - The Universe is infinite and eternal.

What do you mean by "the universe"?

ALL-THERE-IS

See how also asking clarifying questions is also a much better (quicker, simpler, and easier) way to comprehend and thus understand what "another" is actually saying and meaning.

To assume all things is unrestricted comprehension.

[Eodnhoj7]

But that is exactly what you did NOT do at all.

Maybe you are becoming delusional?

You did NOT use my exact words at all. You used your own words to just ask another question. So, you NEVER used my exact words and you also actually NEVER answered my question at all either.

This can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers.

Yes. I used your exact words, Age. I even quoted them in this post.
Indeed, this can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers, who will see that you are actually lying.

You are also lying about me asking you questions, because in this post I didn't ask you any questions.

Maybe you aren't a liar, but I find it impossible to interpret you charitably. It seems to me that you are doing absolutely everything in your power to hinder communication. Perhaps you were also lying when you said you are here to learn to communicate better?

Actually he is a liar...I caught him in a few lies I have to copy and paste...you are not the only one.

[Age]

Obviously. Humans lived long before money was invented. Money is just a token of value.

See how instead of 'interpreting', which is just ASSUMING, what I am saying, and instead just LOOKING FOR the Truth in it, then how QUICKLY, EASILY, and SIMPLY the actual and real Truth of things can be found and discovered?.

Although you say 'obviously', and it is absolutely obvious when you are OPEN, most adult human beings do NOT believe it is true, and thus are not at all open to even consider this seemingly absurd and contradictory proposition or statement to them.

What do you mean by "the universe"?

ALL-THERE-IS

See how also asking clarifying questions is also a much better (quicker, simpler, and easier) way to comprehend and thus understand what "another" is actually saying and meaning.

To assume all things is unrestricted comprehension.

As far as I am aware at present 'you', "eodnhoj7", are the only one I know of that assumes all things.