Circularity & Self-Reference is a Taboo?

[Eodnhoj7]

Everything??
How do you know what the extent of my everything that it is shrinking?

As mentioned, say, there are 10 levels to the coverage and understanding of philosophical knowledge.
Say, upon self-criticism I believe based on comparison my level could be say 7.
As such, my interaction would be striving to expand my level to level 8 or 9.
I make sure I am not I am lowering to level 2 or 3 with my interaction with AI.

For you there are levels.

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Levels are never fixed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For you there are levels.

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Levels are never fixed.

Do you need to post the obvious?

[Eodnhoj7]

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Levels are never fixed.

Do you need to post the obvious?

Yes because your standards are built on sand.

[FlashDangerpants]

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

In your case, your level in philosophy is worryingly low given how many years you have made daily attempts at it here.

You need to learn and really understand the first half of a good book about logic before re-thinking everything else you've done. You don't need the second half.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

In your case, your level in philosophy is worryingly low given how many years you have made daily attempts at it here.

You need to learn and really understand the first half of a good book about logic before re-thinking everything else you've done. You don't need the second half.

I agree basic logic is important which is not an issue for me.

What is worst is, where one is 'good' with logic but has very primitive and barbaric philosophy as your analytic and philosophy of language plus whatever you are spouting at present.

[FlashDangerpants]

For every organized and systematic human activities, e.g. sports, academic, arts, other professional activities, etc. there are levels of competencies and skills; understanding within philosophy is no exception.
In participation with any of the above, it is critical that one understand where one's level of skill is so to facilitate progress.
Understanding one's level is to avoid being an ultracrepidarian or are infected with The Dunning-Kruger effect.

In your case, your level in philosophy is worryingly low given how many years you have made daily attempts at it here.

You need to learn and really understand the first half of a good book about logic before re-thinking everything else you've done. You don't need the second half.

I agree basic logic is important which is not an issue for me.

Well, you wouldn't be using ChatGPT to cook up bullshit about recursion to justify your many circular arguments if that were true, so this thread by it's very existence shows you are mistaken.

For additioanl proof, have you worked out what's wrong with your "God is an impossiblity to be true" argument yet? You wrote it something like 7 years ago, if you have made progress you should be able to critcise your elderly works, especially ones where everyone else spotted the mistakes on day 1.

What is worst is, where one is 'good' with logic but has very primitive and barbaric philosophy as your analytic and philosophy of language plus whatever you are spouting at present.

Yawn. All we ever actually asked of you was that you would deliver valid and sound arguments before declaring your superiority. You never delivered, you don't really know what you are getting wrong. I feel sort of bad for you some days.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In your case, your level in philosophy is worryingly low given how many years you have made daily attempts at it here.

You need to learn and really understand the first half of a good book about logic before re-thinking everything else you've done. You don't need the second half.

I agree basic logic is important which is not an issue for me.

Well, you wouldn't be using ChatGPT to cook up bullshit about recursion to justify your many circular arguments if that were true, so this thread by it's very existence shows you are mistaken.

For additioanl proof, have you worked out what's wrong with your "God is an impossiblity to be true" argument yet? You wrote it something like 7 years ago, if you have made progress you should be able to critcise your elderly works, especially ones where everyone else spotted the mistakes on day 1.

You are creating your own fantasized story.
The effective time is 1 year ago, not 7 years ago.

I have improved the presentation of my "God is an impossibility to be real" 2018 to a new one, i.e.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Sun Jun 11, 2023

Just as the older one, there is no issue with the validity of the argument as now validated by ChatGpt.
The various issues raised are with reference to the contents of the premises which I have countered all objections raised.

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

• ChatGpt:
  In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Re: conditioned nature of reality, I have addressed that in many threads in this forum.

What is worst is, where one is 'good' with logic but has very primitive and barbaric philosophy as your analytic and philosophy of language plus whatever you are spouting at present.

Yawn. All we ever actually asked of you was that you would deliver valid and sound arguments before declaring your superiority. You never delivered, you don't really know what you are getting wrong. I feel sort of bad for you some days.

I don't have an issue with basic logic; I have 259 files in 29 sub-topics in my PC drive thus I am reasonably informed of what is logic.
Especially now with AI, there should be no issue with basic logic at all where any doubt re validity can be polished by AI.

Show me where any of my arguments are not deductively valid?

Whatever it as at issue is not validity but at times with missing prosyllogisms and contentious circularity.
The missing [avoided] prosyllogisms [nuances] [argued elsewhere] are due to being hasty in saving time within a limited like this.
As for circularity, it is not a glaring circularity but there are nuances involved especially within human system as explained in the OP.

You on the other hand, whilst may present valid arguments but because you are grounding your philosophy on an illusion [fact = absolute mind independence], whatever the conclusion therefrom can never be deductively sound.

[FlashDangerpants]

I agree basic logic is important which is not an issue for me.

Well, you wouldn't be using ChatGPT to cook up bullshit about recursion to justify your many circular arguments if that were true, so this thread by it's very existence shows you are mistaken.

For additioanl proof, have you worked out what's wrong with your "God is an impossiblity to be true" argument yet? You wrote it something like 7 years ago, if you have made progress you should be able to critcise your elderly works, especially ones where everyone else spotted the mistakes on day 1.

You are creating your own fantasized story.
The effective time is 1 year ago, not 7 years ago.

I have improved the presentation of my "God is an impossibility to be real" 2018 to a new one, i.e.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Sun Jun 11, 2023

Just as the older one, there is no issue with the validity of the argument as now validated by ChatGpt.
The various issues raised are with reference to the contents of the premises which I have countered all objections raised.

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

• ChatGpt:
  In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Re: conditioned nature of reality, I have addressed that in many threads in this forum.

What is worst is, where one is 'good' with logic but has very primitive and barbaric philosophy as your analytic and philosophy of language plus whatever you are spouting at present.

Yawn. All we ever actually asked of you was that you would deliver valid and sound arguments before declaring your superiority. You never delivered, you don't really know what you are getting wrong. I feel sort of bad for you some days.

I don't have an issue with basic logic; I have 259 files in 29 sub-topics in my PC drive thus I am reasonably informed of what is logic.
Especially now with AI, there should be no issue with basic logic at all where any doubt re validity can be polished by AI.

Show me where any of my arguments are not deductively valid?

Whatever it as at issue is not validity but at times with missing prosyllogisms and contentious circularity.
The missing [avoided] prosyllogisms [nuances] [argued elsewhere] are due to being hasty in saving time within a limited like this.
As for circularity, it is not a glaring circularity but there are nuances involved especially within human system as explained in the OP.

You on the other hand, whilst may present valid arguments but because you are grounding your philosophy on an illusion [fact = absolute mind independence], whatever the conclusion therefrom can never be deductively sound.

To pass the test you just failed, you didn't need to successfully defend the argument I pointed you at, nor to renew it in updated form. You needed to be able to describe the ways in which it just doesn't work.

I would like to point out that I said you are bad at logic, but I didn't specify the logical flaw in any particular argument.
The revised God argument still applies natural limits to supernatural beings, so remains broken in that the premises can all be true while the conclusion remains false.

You still use ChatGPT to tell you what arguments are valid or not, which is a problem all of its own. It also shows you to be a liar when you claim to only use GPT like some sort of calculator

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, you wouldn't be using ChatGPT to cook up bullshit about recursion to justify your many circular arguments if that were true, so this thread by it's very existence shows you are mistaken.

For additioanl proof, have you worked out what's wrong with your "God is an impossiblity to be true" argument yet? You wrote it something like 7 years ago, if you have made progress you should be able to critcise your elderly works, especially ones where everyone else spotted the mistakes on day 1.

You are creating your own fantasized story.
The effective time is 1 year ago, not 7 years ago.

I have improved the presentation of my "God is an impossibility to be real" 2018 to a new one, i.e.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Sun Jun 11, 2023

Just as the older one, there is no issue with the validity of the argument as now validated by ChatGpt.
The various issues raised are with reference to the contents of the premises which I have countered all objections raised.

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

• ChatGpt:
  In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Re: conditioned nature of reality, I have addressed that in many threads in this forum.

Yawn. All we ever actually asked of you was that you would deliver valid and sound arguments before declaring your superiority. You never delivered, you don't really know what you are getting wrong. I feel sort of bad for you some days.

I don't have an issue with basic logic; I have 259 files in 29 sub-topics in my PC drive thus I am reasonably informed of what is logic.
Especially now with AI, there should be no issue with basic logic at all where any doubt re validity can be polished by AI.

Show me where any of my arguments are not deductively valid?

Whatever it as at issue is not validity but at times with missing prosyllogisms and contentious circularity.
The missing [avoided] prosyllogisms [nuances] [argued elsewhere] are due to being hasty in saving time within a limited like this.
As for circularity, it is not a glaring circularity but there are nuances involved especially within human system as explained in the OP.

You on the other hand, whilst may present valid arguments but because you are grounding your philosophy on an illusion [fact = absolute mind independence], whatever the conclusion therefrom can never be deductively sound.

To pass the test you just failed, you didn't need to successfully defend the argument I pointed you at, nor to renew it in updated form. You needed to be able to describe the ways in which it just doesn't work.

I would like to point out that I said you are bad at logic, but I didn't specify the logical flaw in any particular argument.
The revised God argument still applies natural limits to supernatural beings, so remains broken in that the premises can all be true while the conclusion remains false.

There is no issue with the validity of the logic in my first post.
The contentions and objections are merely on the premises which I had countered.
For sake of efficiency I represented the arguments and points in a new thread.

I have not left any issues and objections unattended in that thread.
If you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

You still use ChatGPT to tell you what arguments are valid or not, which is a problem all of its own. It also shows you to be a liar when you claim to only use GPT like some sort of calculator

You are the hasty fumbling one, I did not claim to use GPT like some sort of calculator; others [Atto, Ednhoj7] had claimed AI to be an advanced calculator which I objected.
AI can "Think", Reason and Infer Autonomously?
viewtopic.php?t=43241

[FlashDangerpants]

You are creating your own fantasized story.
The effective time is 1 year ago, not 7 years ago.

I have improved the presentation of my "God is an impossibility to be real" 2018 to a new one, i.e.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Sun Jun 11, 2023

Just as the older one, there is no issue with the validity of the argument as now validated by ChatGpt.
The various issues raised are with reference to the contents of the premises which I have countered all objections raised.

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

• ChatGpt:
  In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Re: conditioned nature of reality, I have addressed that in many threads in this forum.


I don't have an issue with basic logic; I have 259 files in 29 sub-topics in my PC drive thus I am reasonably informed of what is logic.
Especially now with AI, there should be no issue with basic logic at all where any doubt re validity can be polished by AI.

Show me where any of my arguments are not deductively valid?

Whatever it as at issue is not validity but at times with missing prosyllogisms and contentious circularity.
The missing [avoided] prosyllogisms [nuances] [argued elsewhere] are due to being hasty in saving time within a limited like this.
As for circularity, it is not a glaring circularity but there are nuances involved especially within human system as explained in the OP.

You on the other hand, whilst may present valid arguments but because you are grounding your philosophy on an illusion [fact = absolute mind independence], whatever the conclusion therefrom can never be deductively sound.

To pass the test you just failed, you didn't need to successfully defend the argument I pointed you at, nor to renew it in updated form. You needed to be able to describe the ways in which it just doesn't work.

I would like to point out that I said you are bad at logic, but I didn't specify the logical flaw in any particular argument.
The revised God argument still applies natural limits to supernatural beings, so remains broken in that the premises can all be true while the conclusion remains false.

There is no issue with the validity of the logic in my first post.
The contentions and objections are merely on the premises which I had countered.
For sake of efficiency I represented the arguments and points in a new thread.

I have not left any issues and objections unattended in that thread.
If you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

All that happened here is htat we assessed your claim that you are capable of simple logic and have found it to be untrue. re-litigating obviously shit arguments just to see you fail to grasp the point yet again isn't really worth the bother. The case has been made and proven, you just don't get it.

You still use ChatGPT to tell you what arguments are valid or not, which is a problem all of its own. It also shows you to be a liar when you claim to only use GPT like some sort of calculator

You are the hasty fumbling one, I did not claim to use GPT like some sort of calculator; others [Atto, Ednhoj7] had claimed AI to be an advanced calculator which I objected.
AI can "Think", Reason and Infer Autonomously?
viewtopic.php?t=43241

Oh, my bad, you didn't say calculator, you said "spellcheck"

In most cases, I am not relying or is borrowing from Bard or ChatGpt totally but rather [given English not my native tongue] I present my points and views and got Bard or ChatGpt to represent it in a more organized and structured manner and ensure it follows logically.
Bard and ChatGt in my case is more like a spellcheck or grammar check program.

This remains demonstrably a lie.

[Atla]

Most who critiqued my concept of frameworks denial the existence of framework and system underlying knowledge and human nature.

No they don't. People just reject your version of all that which is upside down.

Hm a VA vs Johndoe showdown. Who should one root for here? I'm confused.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To pass the test you just failed, you didn't need to successfully defend the argument I pointed you at, nor to renew it in updated form. You needed to be able to describe the ways in which it just doesn't work.

I would like to point out that I said you are bad at logic, but I didn't specify the logical flaw in any particular argument.
The revised God argument still applies natural limits to supernatural beings, so remains broken in that the premises can all be true while the conclusion remains false.

There is no issue with the validity of the logic in my first post.
The contentions and objections are merely on the premises which I had countered.
For sake of efficiency I represented the arguments and points in a new thread.

I have not left any issues and objections unattended in that thread.
If you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

All that happened here is htat we assessed your claim that you are capable of simple logic and have found it to be untrue. re-litigating obviously shit arguments just to see you fail to grasp the point yet again isn't really worth the bother. The case has been made and proven, you just don't get it.

I am very serious with this.
For intellectual integrity sake, there is no way I will leave any objections unattended and not fully countered.

Again, if you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

So my claim still stands:
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The main point is;
For those theists [majority, i.e. Christians, Muslims and others] who claim their God to be absolutely perfect, that is an impossibility because absolute perfection cannot be 'real' in a empirical world that is verifiable and justifiable via the scientific FSK, the gold standard.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no issue with the validity of the logic in my first post.
The contentions and objections are merely on the premises which I had countered.
For sake of efficiency I represented the arguments and points in a new thread.

I have not left any issues and objections unattended in that thread.
If you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

All that happened here is htat we assessed your claim that you are capable of simple logic and have found it to be untrue. re-litigating obviously shit arguments just to see you fail to grasp the point yet again isn't really worth the bother. The case has been made and proven, you just don't get it.

I am very serious with this.
For intellectual integrity sake, there is no way I will leave any objections unattended and not fully countered.

Again, if you think there is any unattended issue, raise it in a new thread so I can counter it efficiently.

So my claim still stands:
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The main point is;
For those theists [majority, i.e. Christians, Muslims and others] who claim their God to be absolutely perfect, that is an impossibility because absolute perfection cannot be 'real' in a empirical world that is verifiable and justifiable via the scientific FSK, the gold standard.

Firstly, I already told you that you are applying natural limits to a supernatural being in that argument, so there's a single game ender just there. To be honest I don't know how many other massive failings anybody can find with it.

But I don't treat it as an argument that I need to care about. It's an intelligence test, anybody with any level of skill or talent should have no real problem defeating that argument, it's as if it were constructed to be an example of an argument that doesn't work. That's the limit of its value to me.

I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick and thought that I would stoop to getting into a big debate about that actual argument, it's just that one and the oughtness to breathe argument among a few of your other spectacular missteps are sort of useful for gauging whether you have made any progress in those 7 years or so, and maybe I would point somebody like Advocate at them just to see if he is less stupid than you. But they are nothing to me beyond that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Most who critiqued my concept of frameworks denial the existence of framework and system underlying knowledge and human nature.

No they don't. People just reject your version of all that which is upside down.

Hm a VA vs Johndoe showdown. Who should one root for here? I'm confused.

As long as they don't kiss, I am happy to see what happens. Maybe one of them will evolve a new talent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Whenever people like FDP and gang 'smell' circularity and self-reference, they would be bringing out their giant hammers and spears & arrows to pound/shoot whoever initiated it.
I understand the obvious circularity should be rejected but in very complex issues what seem like circularity and self-reference is inevitable and useful, especially those dealing with the human conditions.

AI[wR] Wrote:
Self-reference and circularity are indeed often viewed with skepticism in classical logic, primarily because they can lead to paradoxes, such as the famous "liar paradox," where a statement refers to itself in a way that makes it true and false at the same time.
However, self-reference is not only inevitable in many aspects of human thought, language, and activity, but it can also be incredibly useful.
Let’s explore some areas where self-reference plays a constructive role.

1. Language and Communication
Self-reference is an inherent feature of language. In many statements, we reference our own linguistic constructs. For example, the phrase "This sentence is in English" is self-referential; it talks about itself. This is useful because it allows us to clarify or specify meaning in conversation, helping people understand or reflect on their discourse.

Example: When someone states, "This essay argues that self-reference is important," they're using self-reference to outline the function of their essay.

2. Psychology and Self-Reflection
In psychology, self-reference is crucial for self-awareness and personal growth. Reflecting on one’s own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors often leads to greater insight and understanding. Through self-reference, individuals can examine their own motivations and actions.

Example: When you ask yourself, "Why do I feel anxious about public speaking?" you're engaging in self-referential thinking, which can help uncover underlying issues and lead to personal development.

3. Mathematics and Set Theory
In mathematics, particularly in areas like set theory and Gödel's incompleteness theorems, self-reference can be a powerful tool. Gödel's work showed that in any sufficiently complex axiomatic system, you can create statements that reference themselves, ultimately leading to the conclusion that not all truths can be proven within that system.

Example: The statement "This statement is unprovable" is self-referential and indicates the limitations of formal systems. While it can be paradoxical, it also enriches our understanding of mathematics and logic.

4. Art and Literature
Many forms of art and literature utilize self-reference in innovative ways. Meta-narratives in literature often reflect on the act of storytelling itself, prompting readers to consider the nature and purpose of narratives.

Example: In "If on a Winter's Night a Traveler" by Italo Calvino, the structure constantly refers to the experience of reading, engaging readers in a self-referential journey.

5. Programming and Recursive Functions
In computer science, self-reference is vital in the development of recursive functions, where a function calls itself to solve problems. This self-referential approach can simplify complex tasks.

Example: A factorial function in programming often references itself: factorial(n) = n * factorial(n-1), which efficiently computes the factorial of a number through self-reference.

Conclusion
While self-reference can lead to challenges in classical logic and potential paradoxes, it is also an unavoidable and constructive aspect of various fields.
It helps in communication, personal introspection, theoretical mathematics, creative expression, and practical problem-solving.
By understanding self-reference, we can navigate both the potential pitfalls and the valuable insights it offers across disciplines.

Self-Reference in Cybernetics
viewtopic.php?p=747502#p747502

Discuss??
Views??

Agree. Self reference is an essential aspect of experience.