2+2=5

[Magnus Anderson]

Dumb sophist. There is no need for a how when the deduction always produces the empty set.

You don't know that (i.e. that the set is empty) until you do the deduction. And you can't do the deduction unless there is a how.

So surely all of those rules mean exactly the same thing!

I am not talking about what these rules lead to. I am talking about the rules themselves. If they exist, regardless of what they lead to, the symbol they are attached to is said to be meaningful. That's the definition. Perhaps you should learn how definitions work.

Well, they are! By your very own substitution rule! Both of them reduce to the exact same constant - the empty set.

Nah, you're still not following.

Why wouldn't you be able to make the substitution?

Both "square circle" and "man woman" are materially equivalent to the empty set.

Try to argue against someone's claim that "Women are men" by arguing that square circles do not exist and see what happens.

[Skepdick]

You don't know that (i.e. that the set is empty) until you do the deduction. And you can't do the deduction unless there is a how.

I don't need to know that if you knew that. That's literally how communication works!

You conceive of a thing -> you want to replicate the concept from your mind to my mind -> you express it in language.

So now you are trying to convince me that you concieved of ???; and the way you expressed ??? in language was to say "square circle". Even though the thing you conceived of reduces to an empty set.

So what did you conceive of exactly that (1) wasn't the empty set; (2) reduces to an empty set; and (3) you expressed as "square circle"? Do you even know?

I am not talking about what these rules lead to. I am talking about the rules themselves. If they exist, regardless of what they lead to, the symbol they are attached to is said to be meaningful. That's the definition. Perhaps you should learn how definitions work.

I know very well how definitions work. I also know how rationalisation works. What you are doing seems much closer to the latter.

Because here is me attaching the deduction rule of "dickering smidgerins" to the expression "pomkering donkerings". And it's meaningful now.

Nah, you're still not following.

That says a lot about you, given how good I am at following. Too bad you just can't paint me the exact picture from the conception of whatever it is that you conceived to the expression "square circles".

Try to argue against someone's claim that "Women are men" by arguing that square circles do not exist and see what happens.

Of course. It's pointless arguing with idiots who have no idea what they are trying to express.

[Magnus Anderson]

I know very well how definitions work.

You clearly don't.

I also know how rationalisation works. What you are doing seems much closer to the latter.

Do you know how projection works?

I don't need to know that if you knew that. That's literally how communication works!

You conceive of a thing -> you want to replicate the concept from your mind to my mind -> you express it in language.

You are missing the point (as you usually do.) In order for ANYONE to know that the set of all things that can be represented by "square circle" is an empty one, they have to deduce it. It's a type of symbol whose meaning depends on the meaning of other symbols. And in order to deduce it, there must be a how i.e. a set of rules telling them how to perform the deduction.

Your "I don't need a how" is nothing but a distraction from what's relevant (and even then, it's only relevant due to your misunderstandings.) And what's relevant is that I have defined the term "meaning" to refer to BOTH the set of all things that can be represented by the attached symbol AND the set of rules that can be used to deduce that set. It does not merely refer to the former (as you keep insisting.)

given how good I am at following

You're horrible at it and you don't even know it. Not only that, you think you're precisely the opposite of it. It's the definition of the word "delusional".

Of course. It's pointless arguing with idiots who have no idea what they are trying to express.

Whether it's pointless or not is irrelevant (another one of your distractions.) The point is that if you want to correct their mistake, you cannot do so by arguing that square circles do not exist. If you want to correct them, you will have to show that the statement "Women are men" is a contradiction in terms.

[Skepdick]

I know very well how definitions work.

You clearly don't.

How "clear" is your clarity if you can't even define "define"?

The point around recursion went over your head a bunch of times...

Do you know how projection works?

Would you like to teach me?

You are missing the point (as you usually do.) In order for ANYONE to know that the set of all things that can be represented by "square circle" is an empty one, they have to deduce it.

Really? From what premises might you deduce it?

It's a type of symbol whose meaning depends on the meaning of other symbols. And in order to deduce it, there must be a how i.e. a set of rules telling them how to perform the deduction.

How deep can you go into your own bullshit? You said that you assigned the meaning to the phrase "square circles". Why would you have to deduce the very thing you assigned to it?

Your "I don't need a how" is nothing but a distraction from what's relevant (and even then, it's only relevant due to your misunderstandings.) And what's relevant is that I have defined the term "meaning" to refer to BOTH the set of all things that can be represented by the attached symbol AND the set of rules that can be used to deduce that set. It does not merely refer to the former (as you keep insisting.)

So you necessarily had the deduction rules BEFORE you attached them to the phrase "square circle".

What rules did you have in mind and why?

You're horrible at it and you don't even know it. Not only that, you think you're precisely the opposite of it. It's the definition of the word "delusional".

Are you teaching me about projection now?

Whether it's pointless or not is irrelevant (another one of your distractions.) The point is that if you want to correct their mistake, you cannot do so by arguing that square circles do not exist.

I am not trying to "correct your mistake". I am trying to get you to recognise your own confusion.

The linguistic expression "square circles" exists - it doesn't relate to any idea/concept in your actual head - it's an empty word. Even to you, and you know that, despite your desperate attempts to philosophise it away.

But of course "I am not a mind reader" and you have to save face... Too fucking bad.

If you want to correct them, you will have to show that the statement "Women are men" is a contradiction in terms.

But contradictions don't exist, you see. So when you say "women are men" that would make it an existing contradiction. Which would contradict the rule that contradictions don't exist.

You see... your logic is very broken, and now you are making it my problem to fix it for you. It's a whole lot easier for me to help you when you recognise, and admit that you actually have a problem.

[Magnus Anderson]

How "clear" is your clarity if you can't even define "define"?

You're presuming that I cannot define "define".

Would you like to teach me?

No.

Really? From what premises might you deduce it?

You can deduce it from "A shape that is both a square and a circle".

How deep can you go into your own bullshit?

You can go very very deep, that's for sure.

You said that you assigned the meaning to the phrase "square circles". Why would you have to deduce the very thing you assigned to it?

You have misunderstood (as usual.)

So you necessarily had the deduction rules BEFORE you attached them to the phrase "square circle".

Yes.

I am not trying to "correct your mistake". I am trying to get you to recognise your own confusion.

The linguistic expression "square circles" exists - it doesn't relate to any idea/concept in your actual head - it's an empty word. Even to you, and you know that, despite your desperate attempts to philosophise it away.

But of course "I am not a mind reader" and you have to save face... Too fucking bad.

You really are a retard.

But contradictions don't exist, you see. So when you say "women are men" that would make it an existing contradiction. Which would contradict the rule that contradictions don't exist.

Contradictions do exist, fuckface. You just have to understand what the word "contradiction" means. It refers to a presence of two opposite, mutually exclusive, beliefs in one and the same mind at the same time. "Women are men" is indeed a contradiction. And yes, it's false. And yes, there are no women who are men. And none of that is relevant. It's just your stupid little brain doing its usual crap where it doesn't know how to properly stay focused on the discussion.

You see... your logic is very broken, and now you are making it my problem to fix it for you. It's a whole lot easier for me to help you when you recognise, and admit that you actually have a problem.

Fuckface, YOU are the one with the problem. YOU are the postmodernist moron here. YOU are the useful idiot. YOU are the one rejecting the law of excluded middle. YOU are the sad creature. YOU are the lonely little fucktard who has to overcompensate. YOU are everything negative you see in other people. You are looking at YOURSELF. It's called PROJECTION. Your mind can't stomach how much of a shit you are, so it gets redirected -- it gets projected onto other people.

[Skepdick]

How "clear" is your clarity if you can't even define "define"?

You're presuming that I cannot define "define".

It's not a presumption - I know you can't because nobody can.

You can deduce it from "A shape that is both a square and a circle".

Uhuh. And from what premises might you deduce a "shape"?

So you necessarily had the deduction rules BEFORE you attached them to the phrase "square circle".

Yes.

Perfect! So you should have no problem telling me what you deduced the deduction rules from.

You really are a retard.

You said you aren't going to teach me about projection, and yet...

Contradictions do exist, fuckface. You just have to understand what the word "contradiction" means. It refers to a presence of two opposite, mutually exclusive, beliefs in one and the same mind at the same time.

What the hell do you mean by "mutually exclusive"? If they are, in fact, "mutualy exclusive", how could anyone possibly hold them in their mind at the same time?

And if I am, in fact holding two "mutually exclusive" beliefs in my head, at the same time then that is literally evidence for the fact that they are NOT mutually exclusive!

Dumb Classical logician! Why is modus tollens so confusing for you?

"Women are men" is indeed a contradiction. And yes, it's false. And yes, there are no women who are men. And none of that is relevant. It's just your stupid little brain doing its usual crap where it doesn't know how to properly stay focused on the discussion.

I am focused on the discussion with laser precision! It's you who is a total fucking retard and can't see the problem with your own logic.

IF "women are men" is a contradiction, how are you then holding those "mutually-exclusive beliefs" in the same mind at the same time ?!?!

Fuckface, YOU are the one with the problem. YOU are the postmodernist moron here. YOU are the useful idiot. YOU are the one rejecting the law of excluded middle. YOU are the sad creature. YOU are the lonely little fucktard who has to overcompensate. YOU are everything negative you see in other people. You are looking at YOURSELF. It's called PROJECTION. Your mind can't stomach how much of a shit you are, so it gets redirected -- it gets projected onto other people.

You seem to know a lot about projection, but you don't seem to know absolutely anything about reflection.

You keep DOING the very damn things your logic says you "can't do". If that's not evidence that your logic is broken - I don't know what is.

Look at all the pejoratives and vitriol you are spewing at me. It's not my fault that you don't understand computer science; or recursion. Catch up to 2022 whenever you feel like it.

[Magnus Anderson]

What the hell do you mean by "mutually exclusive"? If they are, in fact, "mutualy exclusive", how could anyone possibly hold them in their mind at the same time?

And if I am, in fact holding two "mutually exclusive" beliefs in my head, at the same time then that is literally evidence for the fact that they are NOT "mutually exclusive"!

Dumb Classical logician!

You are either an agent who is paid to destroy human intelligence by spreading nonsense or you're just a really useful and a really dumb individual.

[Skepdick]

What the hell do you mean by "mutually exclusive"? If they are, in fact, "mutualy exclusive", how could anyone possibly hold them in their mind at the same time?

And if I am, in fact holding two "mutually exclusive" beliefs in my head, at the same time then that is literally evidence for the fact that they are NOT "mutually exclusive"!

Dumb Classical logician!

You are either an agent who is paid to destroy human intelligence by spreading nonsense or you're just a really useful and a really dumb individual.

This is what happens when you subscribe to Boolean/Classical logic - you become really stupid. You only know how to think in (false) dichotomies - it completely destroys your ability to reason on a continuum, with nuance and complexity!

There is, in fact, a third option which hasn't even occurred to you! It's entirely possible that I am way way smater than you. But your religion/logic won't allow you to consider that.

[Magnus Anderson]

This is what happens when you subscribe to Boolean/Classical logic - you become really stupid. You only know how to think in (false) dichotomies - it completely destroys your ability to reason on a continuum, with nuance and complexity!

The third option (that I am way way smater than you) hasn't even occurred to you.

They call it "probability distribution". The two options that I mentioned are far more likely than any other. Noone said there are no other options. And Classical / Boolean logic has absolutely nothing to do with it. Classical logic doesn't tell you (as you seem to think) that each possibility has exactly one competing possibility. That's merely you misunderstanding things (as you usually do.) And if you're an agent, there's a chance you're smarter than you appear to be, perhaps even smarter than most of us, merely playing dumb in order to decrease the average intelligence of humans. You not being an agent and being smarter than a toddler at the same time is simply out of the question.

[Skepdick]

This is what happens when you subscribe to Boolean/Classical logic - you become really stupid. You only know how to think in (false) dichotomies - it completely destroys your ability to reason on a continuum, with nuance and complexity!

The third option (that I am way way smater than you) hasn't even occurred to you.

They call it "probability distribution".

Your "probability distribution" only has two buckets: true; false.

Mine has as many as I want to.

But hey, there must be some grand conspiracy to dumb down society! There's even a wikipedia article about many-valued logics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

It must come as a shock to you that two-valued logic has alternatives.

[Magnus Anderson]

Your "probability distribution" only has two buckets: true; false.

Mine has as many as I want to.

But hey, there must be some grand conspiracy to dumb down society! There's even a wikipedia article about many-valued logics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic

It must come as a shock to you that two-valued logic has alternatives.

As I said in another thread, you're a clueless parrot with no real understanding.

Truth is a belief that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to. Correspondence can be completely perfect, completely imperfect and anything in between. As such, truth value can be expressed in binary terms (e.g. true/false, which means, perfect/not perfect correspondence) but it can also be expressed as a percentage (0% meaning completely imperfect, 100% meaning completely perfect, everything in between being somewhere between completely imperfect and completely perfect.) How you're going to talk about veracity depends on your needs. If all you care about is whether a belief perfectly matches reality or not, you're going to use a binary classification. If you care about the nuance, you'll use a classification with arity greater than 2. Binary / Classical logic and the law of excluded middle do not forbid any of this. Some people even mix veracity and certainty (e.g. Kleene's three-valued true/false/unknown.) Nothing wrong per se but it has absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. You don't have to reject the law of excluded middle in order to use multi-valued logic. Only a moron has to do such a thing.

[Skepdick]

Truth is a belief that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to.Correspondence can be completely perfect, completely imperfect and anything in between.

No, that's just one of the many theories of truth. That's why it's called the "correspondence theory". Of course, there are many other theories...

There's the coherence theory, the conseus theory, the pragmatic theory, the deflationist theory.

In fact, we have so many truth-theories I have no idea how to tell which theory is the true theory of truth.

In other news, the entire notion of "beliefs" is just philosophical hogwash. I believe that I have no beliefs. Now what?

As such, truth value can be expressed in binary terms (e.g. true/false, which means, perfect/not perfect correspondence) but it can also be expressed as a percentage (0% meaning completely imperfect, 100% meaning completely perfect, everything in between being somewhere between completely imperfect and completely perfect.) How you're going to talk about veracity depends on your needs. If all you care about is whether a belief perfectly matches reality or not, you're going to use a binary classification.

The irony. You are just parroting what other people have told you. But they forgot to tell you that the correspondence theory is absolute garbage.

If you care about the nuance, you'll use a classification with arity greater than 2. Binary / Classical logic and the law of excluded middle do not forbid any of this. Some people even mix veracity and certainty (e.g. Kleene's three-valued true/false/unknown.) Nothing wrong per se but it has absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. You don't have to reject the law of excluded middle in order to use multi-valued logic. Only a moron has to do such a thing.

Words, words, words. Empty words.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

If truth is correspondence, then how many of the above sentences are true; and how many are false?

[Magnus Anderson]

No, that's just one of the many theories of truth.

It's not a theory. It's a definition. It's what the word means.

That's why it's called the "correspondence theory". Of course, there are many other theories...

There's the coherence theory, the conseus theory, the pragmatic theory, the deflationist theory.

In fact, we have so many truth-theories I have no idea how to tell which theory is the true theory of truth.

It's actually a pretty simple issue. If you're confused about it, perhaps you should stop reading all those silly little "theories" of truth and start thinking for yourself.

In other news, the entire notion of "beliefs" is just philosophical hogwash. I believe that I have no beliefs. Now what?

That's silly.

The irony. You are just parroting what other people have told you. But they forgot to tell you that the correspondence theory is absolutely garbage.

You're the one constantly spamming our discussion with unnecessary references.

If truth is correspondence, then how many of the above sentences are true; and how many are false?

The first is true. The other two are false.

[Skepdick]

No, that's just one of the many theories of truth.

It's not a theory. It's a definition. It's what the word means.

OK. So you don't know even know that it's a theory.

It's actually a pretty simple issue. If you're confused about it, perhaps you should stop reading all those silly little "theories" of truth and start thinking for yourself.

That's precisely what I am doing. Thinking; and thinking about thinking. But recursion isn't your thing it seems.

You don't seem to like my thinking for some reason.

That's silly.

Why?

You're the one constantly spamming our discussion with unnecessary references.

Yeah. They are called counter-examples (to your religion).

The first is true. The other two are false.

What a strange claim. They are all ostensive definitions of the word "red".

Look on the bright side, it appears you know how to tell true definitions from false definitions so....

Which definition of "truth" is true; and which is false?