All Contexts are Simultaneously True and False

[Skepdick]

Part of the testing....

Intelligence testing is multidimensional, it is grounded in how the answers occur as much as the answers.

No. The problem is way more foundational than that.

You can't test for intelligence because you don't know what intelligence is. That which you are testing for becomes normative for intelligence. This is called Goodhart's law.

This is the pitfall of all positive definitions. If you are going to define positive traits for intelligence (what intelligence is), you also have to define negative traits too (what intelligence isn't).

It is precisely because you can't define what intelligence is, is why you keep falling into circular reasoning. Nobody can define what anything is - that is why all language is circular.

[bahman]

How about the title? Is it true and false at the same time?

It is true as self referential, false as open to further interpretation....so yes it is true and false.

There is only one interpretation for the title.

[Eodnhoj7]

Part of the testing....

Intelligence testing is multidimensional, it is grounded in how the answers occur as much as the answers.

No. The problem is way more foundational than that.

You can't test for intelligence because you don't know what intelligence is. That which you are testing for becomes normative for intelligence. This is called Goodhart's law.

This is the pitfall of all positive definitions. If you are going to define positive traits for intelligence (what intelligence is), you also have to define negative traits too (what intelligence isn't).

It is precisely because you can't define what intelligence is, is why you keep falling into circular reasoning. Nobody can define what anything is - that is why all language is circular.

No disagreement, at best tests are processes of definition; hence explanation for how and why an answer is the way it is, is a more accurate expression of intelligence to explain processes considering tests are definitive by nature.

The test neither proves or disproves intelligence, like you state, but rather is the ability to assume and replicate patterns of information.

[Eodnhoj7]

How about the title? Is it true and false at the same time?

It is true as self referential, false as open to further interpretation....so yes it is true and false.

There is only one interpretation for the title.

Yes, true and false.

[Skepdick]

Yes, true and false.

This is the default context in which all arguments take place.

Interlocutor A interprets it as true. Interlocutor B interprets it as false. Dialectic ensues until both agree on either true; or false.

If both interlocutors interpret it as true; or both interpret it at false - debate is unnecessary.

Of course, there is always room for arguing over what it means for something to be 'true' or 'false'. Because philosophy.

In the context of philosophy agreement seems to be interpreted as counter-productive *shrug*

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, true and false.

This is the default context in which all arguments take place.

Interlocutor A interprets it as true. Interlocutor B interprets it as false. Dialectic ensues until both agree on either true; or false.

If both interlocutors interpret it as true; or both interpret it at false - debate is unnecessary.

Of course, there is always room for arguing over what it means for something to be 'true' or 'false'. Because philosophy.

Again, no real disagreement. This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

[Skepdick]

Again, no real disagreement. This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

Any thesis/theory which is not complete leaves room for disagreement.
Any thesis/theory which is complete is inconsistent. Which leaves room for dismissal on the normative grounds of non-contradiction.

Philosophers celebrate this fact - it guarantees job security.

Any complete theory you can lambast as inconsistent.
Any consistent theory you can lambast as incomplete.

Thesis/antithesis/synthesis is the process of alternating your values.

In one moment you value consistency. In the other - you value completeness. But you can't value both, equally and at the same time - hence, you need to choose.

[Eodnhoj7]

Again, no real disagreement. This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

Any thesis/theory which is not complete leaves room for disagreement.
Any thesis/theory which is complete is inconsistent. Which leaves room for dismissal on the normative grounds of non-contradiction.

Consistency is determined by self referentiality, this loop encapsulating the void notion of the assertion necessitates incompleteness as determined by the ability to expand to a further definition. Yet this expansion follows this same empty loop nature where the consistency of interpretation is a dynamic process of change. Completeness follows this dynamic process as well, as the assertion is dynamic. Assertions are complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself.
Assertions as loops are complete and consistent as processes of looping.

Philosophers celebrate this fact - it guarantees job security.

Any consistent theory you can lambast as inconsistent.
Any consistent theory you can lambast as incomplete.

Thesis/antithesis/synthesis is the process of alternating your values.

In one moment you value consistency. In the other - you value completeness. But you can't value both, equally and at the same time - hence, you need to choose.

[Skepdick]

Consistency is determined by self referentiality, this loop encapsulating the void notion of the assertion necessitates incompleteness as determined by the ability to expand to a further definition. Yet this expansion follows this same empty loop nature where the consistency of interpretation is a dynamic process of change. Completeness follows this dynamic process as well, as the assertion is dynamic. Assertions are complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself.
Assertions as loops are complete and consistent as processes of looping.

No. Rinse, repeat.

You don't know what "consistency" is any more than you know what "intelligence" is.

Your definition of consistency is wrong, so you keep falling into circularities. You've been stuck playing Aristotle's game for 2000+ years.

Consistency is not a verbalistic notion, it's an empirical one.

I am consistently inconsistent. Does that mean I am consistent; or inconsistent? I am predictably inconsistent and that makes me consistent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Consistency is determined by self referentiality, this loop encapsulating the void notion of the assertion necessitates incompleteness as determined by the ability to expand to a further definition. Yet this expansion follows this same empty loop nature where the consistency of interpretation is a dynamic process of change. Completeness follows this dynamic process as well, as the assertion is dynamic. Assertions are complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself.
Assertions as loops are complete and consistent as processes of looping.

No. Rinse, repeat.

You don't know what "consistency" is any more than you know what "intelligence" is.

Your definition of consistency is wrong, so you keep falling into circularities. You've been stuck playing Aristotle's game for 2000+ years.

Consistency is not a verbalistic notion, it's an empirical one.

I am consistently inconsistent. Does that mean I am consistent; or inconsistent? I am predictably inconsistent and that makes me consistent.

Consistency is the expression of some higher rule through the rule recursively existence through the assertion, consistency is an expanding loop.

[Skepdick]

Consistency is the expression of some higher rule through the rule recursively existence through the assertion, consistency is an expanding loop.

That is your informal definition. The formal definition is clear and concise.

For any proposition P: (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False. That is the normative rule of most logics.

If you happen to have a logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True, then that system violates the normative rule. Such a system is deemed (by social consensus) as being "inconsistent", but such a system is not inconsistentt with reality.

I can construct you a logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
Like I have demonstrated 100 times before: https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

Empirically and ontologically, such a system exists. Non-contradiction is a value judgment.

That is why ALL Philosophy is bullshit.

On the one hand Philosophy insists that "non-contradiction" is normative.
On the other hand Philosophy insists that the is-ought gap exists.

Fuck off. Pick one!

[Eodnhoj7]

Consistency is the expression of some higher rule through the rule recursively existence through the assertion, consistency is an expanding loop.

That is your informal definition. The formal definition is clear and concise.

For any proposition P: (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False. That is the normative rule of most logics.

If you happen to have a logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True, then that system violates the normative rule. Such a system is deemed (by social consensus) as being "inconsistent", but such a system is not inconsistentt with reality.

I can construct you a logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
Like I have demonstrated 100 times before: https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

Empirically and ontologically, such a system exists. Non-contradiction is a value judgment.

That is why ALL Philosophy is bullshit.

On the one hand Philosophy insists that "non-contradiction" is normative.
On the other hand Philosophy insists that the is-ought gap exists.

Fuck off. Pick one!

I already state, quite a few times, that non contradiction does not exist.

The only three laws I can see:

1. All assertions are center points to further assertions.
2. All assertions are instrinsically empty in themselves.
3. Point 1 and 2 necessitate all assertions as loops.

[Skepdick]

The only three laws I can see:

1. All assertions are center points to further assertions.
2. All assertions are instrinsically empty in themselves.
3. Point 1 and 2 necessitate all assertions as loops.

All assertions necessitate an asserter is the argument for free will.

My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will --William James

[Eodnhoj7]

The only three laws I can see:

1. All assertions are center points to further assertions.
2. All assertions are instrinsically empty in themselves.
3. Point 1 and 2 necessitate all assertions as loops.

All assertions necessitate an asserter is the argument for free will.

My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will --William James

All assertions are a tautology of the asserter.

[Skepdick]

All assertions are a tautology of the asserter.

Naturally. That is the default pre-supposition of the Logos. One's assertions are true - if they weren't, why one wouldn't assert them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos