Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Age]

Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )

By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)

You can now go and blame Aristotle for identity politics...

Now this one of the more ridiculous statements that you have made. Jane, by definition, is NOT human, and nor is John.

The premises of an argument have to be true for it to be a sound valid argument. Both of your premises are NOT true.

You are NEVER going to convince ALL with unsound reasoning like this.

By the way, ALL do NOT need convincing anyway. They just need to be SHOWN what the Truth IS. Just like I have done here.

You are an nit-picking idiot who constantly misses the forest for the trees.

John is hungry.
Jane is hungry.
John is Jane.

Talk about missing the mark.

The word 'john' is just a name or label placed onto some thing. The goes for the name/label 'jane' also.

The name or label 'john' is NOT a human being, and neither is the name/label 'jane'.
A 'human being' IS a 'human being'.

Did you MISS that obvious "tree" while you were busy concentrating on the "forest".
You BELIEVED you were right BEFORE you actually LOOKED AT every (single) thing.

If you Truly WANT TO BE Truly consistent, then you have to do some, what you would call, "nit-picking".

'John' is also neither hungry, just like 'jane' is never hungry also. Place names, themselves, like 'john' and 'jane' do NOT feel things like hunger. It is impossible for names to have feelings. But human beings with the names/labels like 'john' and/or 'jane' may at times feel hungry.

By the way the exact same name or label like 'john' and like 'jane' are placed onto SEPARATE 'human beings'.
Therefore, one does NOT = one.

By definition, 'one' is NOT the same as the 'other one'.

Like I have said; The premises of an argument have to be true, if you want to be taken seriously.

YOUR premises were NEVER true to start with.

[Logik]

Determinism is restricting because it is limited to fact based answers

If it's not based on facts then is it really an answer?

Not all questions though can be answered from a logical perspective

Give me an example. See if I can put the structure in place.

You could not ask a computer a moral question for example as it would not know what answer to give
This is the major problem with machines that have absolutely no understanding of emotion only logic

What solution do you have for this ? Is it actually possible to programme emotion into a machine ?

You are probably missing the point. Computers are made in our own image!

So while we have replicated our own ability to apply logic and do calculations into a machine and in that domain the computer has super-human powers. There are other domains where we haven't been able to figure out how our own brains work - so we haven't been able to make the machine do the same things we can do.

Yes - computers suck at pattern recognition and do not have emotion. Hell - we don't even know how emotions work exactly, we ourselves merely respond to them.

But that's not the point at all. If computers are made to our own image (which they are) and Lambda calculus is a human invention (which it is) and Lambda calculus allows you to express ideas, observations and patterns of thought that Classical logic does not.

Then which one is more human?

[Logik]

Now this one of the more ridiculous statements that you have made. Jane, by definition, is NOT human, and nor is John.

The premises of an argument have to be true for it to be a sound valid argument. Both of your premises are NOT true.

You are NEVER going to convince ALL with unsound reasoning like this.

By the way, ALL do NOT need convincing anyway. They just need to be SHOWN what the Truth IS. Just like I have done here.

You are an nit-picking idiot who constantly misses the forest for the trees.

John is hungry.
Jane is hungry.
John is Jane.

Talk about missing the mark.

The word 'john' is just a name or label placed onto some thing. The goes for the name/label 'jane' also.

The name or label 'john' is NOT a human being, and neither is the name/label 'jane'.
A 'human being' IS a 'human being'.

Did you MISS that obvious "tree" while you were busy concentrating on the "forest".
You BELIEVED you were right BEFORE you actually LOOKED AT every (single) thing.

If you Truly WANT TO BE Truly consistent, then you have to do some, what you would call, "nit-picking".

'John' is also neither hungry, just like 'jane' is never hungry also. Place names, themselves, like 'john' and 'jane' do NOT feel things like hunger. It is impossible for names to have feelings. But human beings with the names/labels like 'john' and/or 'jane' may at times feel hungry.

By the way the exact same name or label like 'john' and like 'jane' are placed onto SEPARATE 'human beings'.
Therefore, one does NOT = one.

By definition, 'one' is NOT the same as the 'other one'.

Like I have said; The premises of an argument have to be true, if you want to be taken seriously.

YOUR premises were NEVER true to start with.

There is a bug on this stupid forum! Why do I keep getting notifications from people on my ignore list?!?

[Age]

Are these, so called, 'objective arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and subjective human beings?

If so, then really how objective could they be?

If the word "objective" triggers you then use the word "consistent".

So, when some 'obvious' flaw is pointed out and shown to you, then instead of you just remaining 'consistent' yourself, you change the words you use to suit what had worked for you previously but does not work for you now. Do you do this just to reaffirm that human beings are inconsistent?

If I change the word 'objective' to the word 'consistent' does the sentence still work?
Okay, let us try.

Are these, so called, 'consistent arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and inconsistent human beings?

I think we STILL KNOW what the answer to the question IS.

The answer IS 'inconsistent human beings', just like you are, create these computers, which is the reason WHY computers are consistently changing.

The information that gets fed into computers, by inconsistent human beings, is also constantly changing and is thus also inconsistent over time.

Computers apply the rules of logic consistently.
Humans don't.

It is just a shame human beings CHANGE the rules of logic, consistently.

If they did NOT, then the 'rules of logic' would have been "fixed in stone", as some might say, many upon many years ago.

The 'consistent arbiter computers' ONLY consistently use the 'rules of logic' UNTIL the 'rules of logic' are changed, by 'you', human beings.

[Logik]

Are these, so called, 'objective arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and subjective human beings?

If so, then really how objective could they be?

If the word "objective" triggers you then use the word "consistent".

So, when some 'obvious' flaw is pointed out and shown to you, then instead of you just remaining 'consistent' yourself, you change the words you use to suit what had worked for you previously but does not work for you now. Do you do this just to reaffirm that human beings are inconsistent?

If I change the word 'objective' to the word 'consistent' does the sentence still work?
Okay, let us try.

Are these, so called, 'consistent arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and inconsistent human beings?

I think we STILL KNOW what the answer to the question IS.

The answer IS 'inconsistent human beings', just like you are, create these computers, which is the reason WHY computers are consistently changing.

The information that gets fed into computers, by inconsistent human beings, is also constantly changing and is thus also inconsistent over time.

Computers apply the rules of logic consistently.
Humans don't.

It is just a shame human beings CHANGE the rules of logic, consistently.

If they did NOT, then the 'rules of logic' would have been "fixed in stone", as some might say, many upon many years ago.

The 'consistent arbiter computers' ONLY consistently use the 'rules of logic' UNTIL the 'rules of logic' are changed, by 'you', human beings.

You are going to learn more about humans if you stood on a corner and charged money for sexual favours.

I have pointed you to reading many times. Educate yourself. I will not teach you.

Logic is just a man-made TOOL. We decide how to use it, so we get to change the rules.

Consistency is not about rules! Consistency is about self-discipline.

[Age]

Is "the same" the same as "the same"?

Of course it is NOT.

Just like one photon is NOT the same as another photon.

And that's your problem!

You are using "the same" inconsistently. You are using "the same" to mean different things in the same context.

But I was NOT.
Therefore, you are totally WRONG, once again.

How many times are you going to be WRONG before you learn to NOT make ASSUMPTIONS, BEFORE you gain clarity?

You have to have clarity, FROM another, if you want to be RIGHT, about them.

How much more obvious could that be?

Is 1 the same as 1?

NO, from my perspective.

(But from another it could be YES).

What is the need which drives your question?

You just went through another thread NOT being able to answer the question correctly because you WANTED an absolute clear interpretation of what the question was asking for. I think you said you, yourself, had made up 8 interpretations about one simple question. Well the same can happen here also.

You can NOT have it both ways, and choose which way you want to LOOK AT things, depending on what point you want to be RIGHT about, each time.

Is cat the same as food?

Inconsistency...

ASSUMPTION.

[Logik]

You can NOT have it both ways, and choose which way you want to LOOK AT things, depending on what point you want to be RIGHT about, each time.

Yes, I can. And that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do.

I will look at things from as many perspectives as necessary till I find the perspective that suits me and my goals.
When you are looking to buy things do you not shop around for the best product? You should!

Humans can't define "right" and "wrong". And I have told you that I am not here to be "right". That's your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF.

You are trying to win arguments, I am just trying to win.

[Age]

But computers can NOT interpret.

Precisely! That's a good thing. It means computers are consistent!

Yes because they are totally STUPID machines.

The reason human beings "progress" is because they are inconsistent, and the reason computers, by themselves, can NOT (yet) progress is because they are consistent, and consistently stupid things.

Computers can only put out what has been put into it. Computers get their input from people like 'you'. That is, computers get their information from the already proven inconsistent human beings, of which you are one.

You don't understand what consistency is and how it works.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

If yes, then what do you base your insightful knowledge of me on, exactly?

This is an example of mathematical addition: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an example of concatenation: A+ B = AB

Observe that the "+" means two different things!

Yes I did, and now since I have, so WHAT?

By the way did you observe the "+" next to the "A" was not separated as far as the "+" next to the "1" is?

Was this done on purpose?

If no, then if you want to talk about consistency, then one has to truly observe and watch out for any and all inconsistencies.
If yes, then is that why the "+" means two different things in YOUR example here?

Like "=" means two different things when you say Jane1 = Jane2 vs Proton1 = Proton2

Okay, again, so WHAT?

Absolutely NONE of this has anything whatsoever to do with what I was talking about. That is; the word 'john' is just a name placed onto some THING, which is WHY the premises in YOUR argument are NOT true.

The issues that you discuss with others are NOT necessarily even remotely close to the issues that I point out to you, which you will find is nearly what happens ALL the time we discuss.

You rarely SEE the issues that I allude to because you are ASSUMING that I am talking about some other issue, which are what are usually raised by others.

[Logik]

Yes because they are totally STUPID machines.

Of course they are stupid! They are made in our own image.

But they are consistent. That's why they are useful. They can perform millions of operations without making errors.

Which is why I trust self-driving cars more than human-driven cars.

The reason human beings "progress" is because they are inconsistent, and the reason computers, by themselves, can NOT (yet) progress is because they are consistent, and consistently stupid things.

Except where inconsistencies in reasoning result in catastrophic errors in practice.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

I don't think in absolutes.

If yes, then what do you base your insightful knowledge of me on, exactly?

On 6 months of watching your incoherent ramblings.

[Age]

Determinism is restricting because it is limited to fact based answers

If it's not based on facts then is it really an answer?

Not all questions though can be answered from a logical perspective

Give me an example. See if I can put the structure in place.

Is 'john' human?

You could not ask a computer a moral question for example as it would not know what answer to give
This is the major problem with machines that have absolutely no understanding of emotion only logic

What solution do you have for this ? Is it actually possible to programme emotion into a machine ?

You are probably missing the point. Computers are made in our own image!

So while we have replicated our own ability to apply logic and do calculations into a machine and in that domain the computer has super-human powers.

LOL

Where did this computer get its so called "super human powers" from?

There are other domains where we haven't been able to figure out how our own brains work - so we haven't been able to make the machine do the same things we can do.

LOL

Light years in the past type of thinking.

How the Mind and the brain work have already been worked out, some time ago.

Yes - computers suck at pattern recognition and do not have emotion. Hell - we don't even know how emotions work exactly, we ourselves merely respond to them.

LOL

Again light years in the past thinking.

How emotions work exactly was very easy to work out.

But that's not the point at all. If computers are made to our own image (which they are) and Lambda calculus is a human invention (which it is) and Lambda calculus allows you to express ideas, observations and patterns of thought that Classical logic does not.

Then which one is more human?

Let me guess, according to you 'a computer' is more human, am I right?

[Logik]

Is 'john' human?

https://repl.it/repls/EthicalStylishSquare

LOL

Where did this computer get its so called "super human powers" from?

From being able to perform millions of operations per second.
Where you can only do 5.

They are just faster.

Light years in the past type of thinking.

How the Mind and the brain work have already been worked out, some time ago.

Yes. You told us. And all of us, humans think you are an asshole for not telling us!

Again light years in the past thinking.

How emotions work exactly was very easy to work out.

Sure. You must be very intelligent if you have worked it out. It's a damn shame that you can't communicate your knowledge to us.

Let me guess, according to you 'a computer' is more human, am I right?

Strawman. You can't tell the difference between theory and practice.

Lambda calculus is THEORETICAL. It's a logical framework. It's written on paper. Lambda calculus is conceptual first!

Computers are the IMPLEMENTATION of HUMAN concepts using physical materials.

Computers are humanity's attempt to define itself through creation. We have created a mechanical mind that is better than our mind in some ways, and worse in others.

[Age]

You are an nit-picking idiot who constantly misses the forest for the trees.

John is hungry.
Jane is hungry.
John is Jane.

Talk about missing the mark.

The word 'john' is just a name or label placed onto some thing. The goes for the name/label 'jane' also.

The name or label 'john' is NOT a human being, and neither is the name/label 'jane'.
A 'human being' IS a 'human being'.

Did you MISS that obvious "tree" while you were busy concentrating on the "forest".
You BELIEVED you were right BEFORE you actually LOOKED AT every (single) thing.

If you Truly WANT TO BE Truly consistent, then you have to do some, what you would call, "nit-picking".

'John' is also neither hungry, just like 'jane' is never hungry also. Place names, themselves, like 'john' and 'jane' do NOT feel things like hunger. It is impossible for names to have feelings. But human beings with the names/labels like 'john' and/or 'jane' may at times feel hungry.

By the way the exact same name or label like 'john' and like 'jane' are placed onto SEPARATE 'human beings'.
Therefore, one does NOT = one.

By definition, 'one' is NOT the same as the 'other one'.

Like I have said; The premises of an argument have to be true, if you want to be taken seriously.

YOUR premises were NEVER true to start with.

There is a bug on this stupid forum! Why do I keep getting notifications from people on my ignore list?!?

There could be a few reasons:

1. When I have pointed out and SHOWN things that you do NOT like to look at and see, you will then dismiss them completely and use some kind of diversion tactic, just like you are right now.
2. You did answer me previously when you thought you were right, but then when you were shown that you were not, then you just wished I was really on your ignore list.
3. You have NOT put me on the ignore list, or you have, but the wondering of what I am saying drove you to take me back off it. That way you can pick and choose when to reply or not.
4. Because computers really are just useless and worthless pieces of materials. Not even capable of doing what they have been programmed to do.
5. Because computers were created by human beings. And, you human beings, very rarely get any thing right. Just look at the MESS that you adults have created down there on that one and only home that you live on and have.

Now, considering we all KNOW that you are getting notifications from me, WHY do you NOT respond to the actual points I raised with you, instead of TRYING TO divert away from them?

[Age]

If the word "objective" triggers you then use the word "consistent".

So, when some 'obvious' flaw is pointed out and shown to you, then instead of you just remaining 'consistent' yourself, you change the words you use to suit what had worked for you previously but does not work for you now. Do you do this just to reaffirm that human beings are inconsistent?

If I change the word 'objective' to the word 'consistent' does the sentence still work?
Okay, let us try.

Are these, so called, 'consistent arbiter computers', which you talk about here, the same ones that were created by biased, dependent, and inconsistent human beings?

I think we STILL KNOW what the answer to the question IS.

The answer IS 'inconsistent human beings', just like you are, create these computers, which is the reason WHY computers are consistently changing.

The information that gets fed into computers, by inconsistent human beings, is also constantly changing and is thus also inconsistent over time.

Computers apply the rules of logic consistently.
Humans don't.

It is just a shame human beings CHANGE the rules of logic, consistently.

If they did NOT, then the 'rules of logic' would have been "fixed in stone", as some might say, many upon many years ago.

The 'consistent arbiter computers' ONLY consistently use the 'rules of logic' UNTIL the 'rules of logic' are changed, by 'you', human beings.

You are going to learn more about humans if you stood on a corner and charged money for sexual favours.

I have pointed you to reading many times. Educate yourself. I will not teach you.

Logic is just a man-made TOOL. We decide how to use it, so we get to change the rules.

Consistency is not about rules! Consistency is about self-discipline.

If you had read what I actual wrote. I did NOT say much different.

Now, back to MY point. YOUR premises were NOT true to start with. So, WHERE does that leave in convincing US of some thing that you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, right, and correct?

[Logik]

Now, back to MY point. YOUR premises were NOT true to start with. So, WHERE does that leave in convincing US of some thing that you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true, right, and correct?

The premises could be true, or they could be false.

How did you determine that the premises are not true?

Did you flip a coin?

[surreptitious57]

So while we have replicated our own ability to apply logic and do calculations into a machine and in that domain the computer has super human powers . There are other domains where we have not been able to figure out how our own brains work - so we have not been able to make the machine do the same things we can do

Yes - computers suck at pattern recognition and do not have emotion . Hell - we do not even know how emotions work exactly we ourselves
merely respond to them

But that is not the point at all . If computers are made to our own image ( which they are ) and Lambda calculus is a human invention
( which it is ) and Lambda calculus allows you to express ideas observations and patterns of thought that Classical logic does not express

Then which one is more human ?

In the future there will be a hybrid of human / machine which will allow for emotional intelligence as well as logical intelligence
These androids will occupy the evolutionary stage between the totally biological human form and the totally logical machine form

We can only imagine these entities however because such phenomena will not be existing within our lifetime