Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:10 am If you have to resort to card shuffling tricks then obviously you are the sophist you complain everyone of being.

Card-shuffling trick? The numbers are right there for you to see. The identity was right there for you to evaluate.

By NOT doing the work you fooled yourself.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman

Before you can "get out" - first you have to figure out what box you are stuck in.... Your box is philosophy.



False, as philosophy (love of knowledge) is not limited to a box as all branches of science, language, religion, etc., as knowledge are subject to philosophy by nature.

One cannot full themselves if, according to you, man is the "measurer". Any lie, ie "fooling oneself", is strictly the creation of a phenomenon (thought, invention, emotion, etc.) that does not align with the nature of presenting a unified structure. In less abstract terms, a lie is fragementation as fragmentation is chaotic by nature. Truth is structure through unity. What brings unity effectively is truth and truth is observed in accords to finding a center between extremes that effectively synthesize them.

Fooling oneself is equivalent to creating divergent ideas, identities, etc...much like what you project: a continual process of rational asymmetric divergence.

You confuse tearing stuff apart with creation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:37 pm False, as philosophy (love of knowledge) is not limited to a box as all branches of science, language, religion, etc., as knowledge are subject to philosophy by nature.

it presupposes the notion of positive and negative properties, and proves the necessary existence of an object which each positive property, but no negative property, applies to.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:59 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:37 pm False, as philosophy (love of knowledge) is not limited to a box as all branches of science, language, religion, etc., as knowledge are subject to philosophy by nature.

You are familiar with Godel's ontological proof, yes? It's constructive in nature.

it presupposes the notion of positive and negative properties, and proves the necessary existence of an object which each positive property, but no negative property, applies to.

Godel proved that God exists in exactly the same way I proved the LNC exists - by creating an object A which satisfies the equation:

(A = A) and (A != A) => True

The reason I was able to construct such an A is because the LNC has no exclusionary criteria. Falsification is mandatory to epistemology.
This is why science (empiricism) is the only way to knowledge.

If your definition of "knowledge" is all-inclusive, but it is not exclusive e.g you are able to say what knowledge IS, but you can't say what knowledge ISN'T - then you have invented one giant religion.


I don't know what knowledge is, but I know what knowledge isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Logic wrote:
I dont know what knowledge is

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:58 pm

Logic wrote:
I dont know what knowledge is

But you know how to acquire it : abduction / induction / deduction / disproof / falsification
The first two lead to provisional knowledge while the last three lead to absolute knowledge

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm I read the first few sentences and then when you said Godel "proves that God..." when he talks nothing about theology in a published mathematics paper....

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Honestly I can't take you seriously anymore, what you offer is just "programming language"...that is it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You are a sophist that just diverges the definitions of words to suit yourself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You even openly argue for the human ego, which means you by default are arguing for your own.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm What gets me is how clever you think you are.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm The digits can be equal and still be false with no contradiction to the law of identity itself if "Px" is observed.
[/quite]
Digits are human inventions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You imply a human being would be tricked because of the lack of work involved in counting, while a computer would not be tricked...but if memories serves (and I will have to Google this when I am not on an ipad) given a length of time Japanese researchers found the computer can still make errors in large sequences...there is randomness even in computation.

Strawman. If it makes less errors than you do - that's still progress.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm For the life of me I cannot figure out why you desire, if I remember your words correctly, why you "want philosophy to die" when programming is a philosophy in and of itself.

Because you keep strawmanning my argument? I am not advocating for programming?

I want philosophy to die so that free thought can prosper.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm I read the first few sentences and then when you said Godel "proves that God..." when he talks nothing about theology in a published mathematics paper....

That you draw a distinction between the two is your error. You don't understand constructive mathematics.
If you defined God as "an entity with Green eyes, 17 legs and a bow tie" then any object in reality that matches those criteria is "God".

Oh. That's not what you meant by "God"? Well define it better then!

I am not drawing a distinction at all, what I am saying is you are making false claims about Godel's published work.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Honestly I can't take you seriously anymore, what you offer is just "programming language"...that is it.

Just? It's constructive mathematics. What are you offering?

Yes..."just". This is not about me offering or not offering anything. You make claims as projections of your own psyche. Back them up. Constructive mathematics is strictly a way of saying "let's make a cocoon around ourselves we can control" not really question what "control" is.

Any system grounded in finiteness as a core principle embodies that same principle and becomes finite.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You are a sophist that just diverges the definitions of words to suit yourself.

DUH! Language is a tool. Do you keep using a hammer when you need a scalpel?

False, when the psyche exists through language grounded in symbols. To equate language as a tool, when it is inherent within not just the psyche but the fabric of being, is to equate the human condition to one of a tool.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You even openly argue for the human ego, which means you by default are arguing for your own.

Is it not your ego that keeps you moving forward?

I am arguing pyramids can redirect energy to a bunch of westerners...I have no room for ego.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm What gets me is how clever you think you are.

Only in as much as I am not trying to re-invent the wheel.

Actually you are trying to multiply it into a myriad of wheels then call it "construction"...so yeah you are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm The digits can be equal and still be false with no contradiction to the law of identity itself if "Px" is observed.
[/quite]
Digits are human inventions.

False, because they represent a finite state (the quantification of quantification) with all finiteness equivalent to multiple infinities. Man cannot invent finiteness or infinity

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You imply a human being would be tricked because of the lack of work involved in counting, while a computer would not be tricked...but if memories serves (and I will have to Google this when I am not on an ipad) given a length of time Japanese researchers found the computer can still make errors in large sequences...there is randomness even in computation.

Strawman. If it makes less errors than you do - that's still progress.

False, because any error is still infinitely less than perfection. It is a slippery slope argument considering we are stuck with meta-relativity to define "greater than" and "less than".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm For the life of me I cannot figure out why you desire, if I remember your words correctly, why you "want philosophy to die" when programming is a philosophy in and of itself.

Because you keep strawmanning my argument? I am not advocating for programming?

I want philosophy to die so that free thought can prosper.

Lol...no you just feel threatened because you cannot program everything...you need to program because it perceivable helps you to control chaos...if everything is in chaos then you feel constantly threatened...

And yes, you do advocate programming by proxy of constructivist mathematics...and well the majority of your posts by proxy. Everything is connected...and it ain't some warm fuzzy feeling for hippies.

Once you realize everything is connected (intellectually and intuitively) first you love it, then you get annoyed by it, then you hate it. Philosophy isn't about selling flowers or hugging orphans.

You want philosophy to die because you are horribly afraid of it...and you should be.




You are not here to discuss ideas...you are here because you are dealing with your own demons.

You cannot kill what cannot be limited to programming...you are stuck in a box...lol...ironic since your job is about putting everything in one.

You can struggle all you want...it won't do you any good.


That psychological advice is for free...no charge.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:25 am I am not drawing a distinction at all, what I am saying is you are making false claims about Godel's published work.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You make claims as projections of your own psyche. Back them up. Constructive mathematics is strictly a way of saying "let's make a cocoon around ourselves we can control" not really question what "control" is.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, when the psyche exists through language grounded in symbols.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm To equate language as a tool, when it is inherent within not just the psyche but the fabric of being, is to equate the human condition to one of a tool.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm I am arguing pyramids can redirect energy to a bunch of westerners...I have no room for ego.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Actually you are trying to multiply it into a myriad of wheels then call it "construction"...so yeah you are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because they represent a finite state (the quantification of quantification) with all finiteness equivalent to multiple infinities. Man cannot invent finiteness or infinity

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because any error is still infinitely less than perfection. It is a slippery slope argument considering we are stuck with meta-relativity to define "greater than" and "less than"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Lol...no you just feel threatened because you cannot program everything...you need to program because it perceivable helps you to control chaos...if everything is in chaos then you feel constantly threatened...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm And yes, you do advocate programming by proxy of constructivist mathematics...and well the majority of your posts by proxy. Everything is connected...and it ain't some warm fuzzy feeling for hippies.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You want philosophy to die because you are horribly afraid of it...and you should be.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You are not here to discuss ideas...you are here because you are dealing with your own demons.

That psychological advice is for free...no charge.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:25 am I am not drawing a distinction at all, what I am saying is you are making false claims about Godel's published work.

The ontological proof is a constructive proof.
Like I constructed a proof for the LNC.
Just because Godel didn't recognize it for what it is doesn't matter.

His incompleteness theorems are historically prior, but conceptually posterior to the Halting problem in computer science.

The same thing happened with constructive/intuitionistic mathematics - it came 30 years after his work.

Rofl...you just lie. You said prior Godel recognized it for God, then now you say he doesn't.

Just face it, constructing the truth is just another way of lying.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You make claims as projections of your own psyche. Back them up. Constructive mathematics is strictly a way of saying "let's make a cocoon around ourselves we can control" not really question what "control" is.

Nobody can be TOLD what control is. You have to see it for yourself.
Words are incomplete.

False: The words "Pull the trigger" directed many fates and controlled alot.

Add the fact internal language results in decision making process and all language takes on a cyclical self reflective nature in the psyche hence always having some degree of self maintained "completion".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, when the psyche exists through language grounded in symbols.

I see, so ground the following for us:

love
compassion
determinism
desire
hate
uncertainty
creativity
beauty

They are already grounded in memories, some individual and other's group shared.

Second, you point out "creativity" as ungroundable (imply this at least) and if that is ungroundable the creation is by proxy; hence "tool" creation and your "programming" is just ungrounded.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm To equate language as a tool, when it is inherent within not just the psyche but the fabric of being, is to equate the human condition to one of a tool.

Of all the strawmen you have built - this one is the largest. Are you running out of hey yet?

False, logical progression. Strawman is relative to the observer in one respect and second I argue it is not a contradiction in the "failure of contradiction" thread.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm I am arguing pyramids can redirect energy to a bunch of westerners...I have no room for ego.

You already know exactly what will convince us. You have YouTube. Record the experiment.

Stop talking an show us.

Wow that is dumb. People are going to accuse me of fraud either way, camera trick, whatever.. Just look up the Russian research...it is already being done. Proof is already out.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Actually you are trying to multiply it into a myriad of wheels then call it "construction"...so yeah you are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Gross mis-interpretation, but whatever.

False, you just replicate the same wheels and then call it "assymetric" and creative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because they represent a finite state (the quantification of quantification) with all finiteness equivalent to multiple infinities. Man cannot invent finiteness or infinity

Forget finititeness or infinity. The number 1 is a signifier. A concept. An idea. Show me a signified for "1".

I can show you three: a dot, a line and a circle.

Second all ideas are rooted in space as evidenced by an empty mind.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because any error is still infinitely less than perfection. It is a slippery slope argument considering we are stuck with meta-relativity to define "greater than" and "less than"

Ego. Right there. You think you can make less errors than a computer when doing a billion calculations?

If I have to do a billion calculations, then I already committed an error by creating a complex problem.

Show us!

The first 100000000000000 prime numbers by..... Monday?

Please don't tell me calculating some useless quantity is how you justify your value.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Lol...no you just feel threatened because you cannot program everything...you need to program because it perceivable helps you to control chaos...if everything is in chaos then you feel constantly threatened...

No, I don't. I just like determinism more than I like anxiety.

So this is all about how you feel? You do understand of space is the foundation for all order and all is space then all is order right?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm And yes, you do advocate programming by proxy of constructivist mathematics...and well the majority of your posts by proxy. Everything is connected...and it ain't some warm fuzzy feeling for hippies.

You have your taxonomy backwards. Programming is an expression of constructivism. It's an expression of all human creativity.

False, if human creativity is limited to programming than programming is putting humanity in a box.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You want philosophy to die because you are horribly afraid of it...and you should be.

I want philosophy to die because it has been producing sterile minds for thousands of years.
The mind is the most valuable thing each and every one of us possesses.

And what is this "sterility" exactly? You mean the atomists giving the foundation to relativity, or blah..blah..blah.

Programming the human condition into a little vat is the definition of sterility.

Logocentrism robs you of that faculty.

The language of python is logocentrism....wow you just run around projecting don't you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You are not here to discuss ideas...you are here because you are dealing with your own demons.

That psychological advice is for free...no charge.

Well, if perfection is the bar you strive for - you just made an error

False, existence is proof and being relative to nothing is perfect. It is subject to relativity.

Second...you cannot create a perfect program by that logic.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:06 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:25 am I am not drawing a distinction at all, what I am saying is you are making false claims about Godel's published work.

The ontological proof is a constructive proof.
Like I constructed a proof for the LNC.
Just because Godel didn't recognize it for what it is doesn't matter.

His incompleteness theorems are historically prior, but conceptually posterior to the Halting problem in computer science.

The same thing happened with constructive/intuitionistic mathematics - it came 30 years after his work.

Rofl...you just lie. You said prior Godel recognized it for God, then now you say he doesn't.

Just face it, constructing the truth is just another way of lying.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You make claims as projections of your own psyche. Back them up. Constructive mathematics is strictly a way of saying "let's make a cocoon around ourselves we can control" not really question what "control" is.

Nobody can be TOLD what control is. You have to see it for yourself.
Words are incomplete.

False: The words "Pull the trigger" directed many fates and controlled alot.

Add the fact internal language results in decision making process and all language takes on a cyclical self reflective nature in the psyche hence always having some degree of self maintained "completion".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, when the psyche exists through language grounded in symbols.

I see, so ground the following for us:

love
compassion
determinism
desire
hate
uncertainty
creativity
beauty

They are already grounded in memories, some individual and other's group shared.

Second, you point out "creativity" as ungroundable (imply this at least) and if that is ungroundable the creation is by proxy; hence "tool" creation and your "programming" is just ungrounded.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm To equate language as a tool, when it is inherent within not just the psyche but the fabric of being, is to equate the human condition to one of a tool.

Of all the strawmen you have built - this one is the largest. Are you running out of hey yet?

False, logical progression. Strawman is relative to the observer in one respect and second I argue it is not a contradiction in the "failure of contradiction" thread.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm I am arguing pyramids can redirect energy to a bunch of westerners...I have no room for ego.

You already know exactly what will convince us. You have YouTube. Record the experiment.

Stop talking an show us.

Wow that is dumb. People are going to accuse me of fraud either way, camera trick, whatever.. Just look up the Russian research...it is already being done. Proof is already out.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Actually you are trying to multiply it into a myriad of wheels then call it "construction"...so yeah you are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Gross mis-interpretation, but whatever.

False, you just replicate the same wheels and then call it "assymetric" and creative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because they represent a finite state (the quantification of quantification) with all finiteness equivalent to multiple infinities. Man cannot invent finiteness or infinity

Forget finititeness or infinity. The number 1 is a signifier. A concept. An idea. Show me a signified for "1".

I can show you three: a dot, a line and a circle.

Second all ideas are rooted in space as evidenced by an empty mind.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm False, because any error is still infinitely less than perfection. It is a slippery slope argument considering we are stuck with meta-relativity to define "greater than" and "less than"

Ego. Right there. You think you can make less errors than a computer when doing a billion calculations?

If I have to do a billion calculations, then I already committed an error by creating a complex problem.

Show us!

The first 100000000000000 prime numbers by..... Monday?

Please don't tell me calculating some useless quantity is how you justify your value.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm Lol...no you just feel threatened because you cannot program everything...you need to program because it perceivable helps you to control chaos...if everything is in chaos then you feel constantly threatened...

No, I don't. I just like determinism more than I like anxiety.

So this is all about how you feel? You do understand of space is the foundation for all order and all is space then all is order right?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm And yes, you do advocate programming by proxy of constructivist mathematics...and well the majority of your posts by proxy. Everything is connected...and it ain't some warm fuzzy feeling for hippies.

You have your taxonomy backwards. Programming is an expression of constructivism. It's an expression of all human creativity.

False, if human creativity is limited to programming than programming is putting humanity in a box.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You want philosophy to die because you are horribly afraid of it...and you should be.

I want philosophy to die because it has been producing sterile minds for thousands of years.
The mind is the most valuable thing each and every one of us possesses.

And what is this "sterility" exactly? You mean the atomists giving the foundation to relativity, or blah..blah..blah.

Programming the human condition into a little vat is the definition of sterility.

Logocentrism robs you of that faculty.

The language of python is logocentrism....wow you just run around projecting don't you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:11 pm You are not here to discuss ideas...you are here because you are dealing with your own demons.

That psychological advice is for free...no charge.

Well, if perfection is the bar you strive for - you just made an error

False, existence is proof and being relative to nothing is perfect. It is subject to relativity.

Second...you cannot create a perfect program by that logic.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:06 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:37 am
The ontological proof is a constructive proof.
Like I constructed a proof for the LNC.
Just because Godel didn't recognize it for what it is doesn't matter.

His incompleteness theorems are historically prior, but conceptually posterior to the Halting problem in computer science.

The same thing happened with constructive/intuitionistic mathematics - it came 30 years after his work.

Rofl...you just lie. You said prior Godel recognized it for God, then now you say he doesn't.

Just face it, constructing the truth is just another way of lying.


Nobody can be TOLD what control is. You have to see it for yourself.
Words are incomplete.

False: The words "Pull the trigger" directed many fates and controlled alot.

Add the fact internal language results in decision making process and all language takes on a cyclical self reflective nature in the psyche hence always having some degree of self maintained "completion".



I see, so ground the following for us:

love
compassion
determinism
desire
hate
uncertainty
creativity
beauty

They are already grounded in memories, some individual and other's group shared.

Second, you point out "creativity" as ungroundable (imply this at least) and if that is ungroundable the creation is by proxy; hence "tool" creation and your "programming" is just ungrounded.


Of all the strawmen you have built - this one is the largest. Are you running out of hey yet?

False, logical progression. Strawman is relative to the observer in one respect and second I argue it is not a contradiction in the "failure of contradiction" thread.



You already know exactly what will convince us. You have YouTube. Record the experiment.

Stop talking an show us.

Wow that is dumb. People are going to accuse me of fraud either way, camera trick, whatever.. Just look up the Russian research...it is already being done. Proof is already out.



Gross mis-interpretation, but whatever.

False, you just replicate the same wheels and then call it "assymetric" and creative.


Forget finititeness or infinity. The number 1 is a signifier. A concept. An idea. Show me a signified for "1".

I can show you three: a dot, a line and a circle.

Second all ideas are rooted in space as evidenced by an empty mind.




Ego. Right there. You think you can make less errors than a computer when doing a billion calculations?

If I have to do a billion calculations, then I already committed an error by creating a complex problem.

Show us!

The first 100000000000000 prime numbers by..... Monday?

Please don't tell me calculating some useless quantity is how you justify your value.





No, I don't. I just like determinism more than I like anxiety.

So this is all about how you feel? You do understand of space is the foundation for all order and all is space then all is order right?





You have your taxonomy backwards. Programming is an expression of constructivism. It's an expression of all human creativity.

False, if human creativity is limited to programming than programming is putting humanity in a box.


I want philosophy to die because it has been producing sterile minds for thousands of years.
The mind is the most valuable thing each and every one of us possesses.

And what is this "sterility" exactly? You mean the atomists giving the foundation to relativity, or blah..blah..blah.

Programming the human condition into a little vat is the definition of sterility.

Logocentrism robs you of that faculty.

The language of python is logocentrism....wow you just run around projecting don't you.



Well, if perfection is the bar you strive for - you just made an error

False, existence is proof and being relative to nothing is perfect. It is subject to relativity.

Second...you cannot create a perfect program by that logic.

Well. I typed a response. It failed to submit. Fuck it

Carry on down the rabbit hole. I has work to do today.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:58 pm Rofl...you just lie. You said prior Godel recognized it for God, then now you say he doesn't.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:58 pm Just face it, constructing the truth is just another way of lying.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:58 pm Rofl...you just lie. You said prior Godel recognized it for God, then now you say he doesn't.

I didn't say that? You misunderstood. But I have neither the desire nor inclination to correct you anymore.

Believe what you want to believe

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:58 pm Just face it, constructing the truth is just another way of lying.

If constructing truth is lying then that's what you are doing right now - lying.

I said constructing knowledge NOT constructing truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:28 pm Knowledge and truth statements are inseperable.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:14 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:28 pm Knowledge and truth statements are inseperable.

Thus failing to distinguish explicit from tacit knowledge.

Know THAT vs know HOW.

The two are not the same.