Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:02 pm Okay, but why are you defining feedback in this context as an external input?

Because that's where the ground is. Outside the place where ideas happen.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:04 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:36 pm As for symbol assignment, the laws of (all) logics are only about the meaning, not the particlar symbols they are FORCED to use when attempting to express anything.

*BZZZZZZT*

Wrong.

In the eternal feat between syntax and semantics, it turns out that meaning resides in syntax while semantics is the home of illusions.

It's just mechanistic symbol wrangling. It's computation in the sense Turing meant it: following fixed rules with no authority to deviate from them in any detail. It's the ultimate abdication of free will!

A new world-view is required here. From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

Maybe you misread me here? When I said the "laws of (all) logics", I mean the three main ones that require at least some understanding of identity, difference (non-identity), and some restriction of accepting contradiction between these two, ...not the fact that one can invent a system of reasoning beyond these rules. They define 'law' itself because the only means OF any system of logic requires CLEAR rules (ie, ...laws) of what some pattern it. Given,

(1)X
(2)X
(3)not-X
(4)X and not-X

...you need to accept that SOME meaning of X in (1) can be mapped to another X, as in (2), such that you call these "the same", while what is 'not-X', being accepted equally as necessary, to express what X is not as in (3) and then a meaning of their 'conjunction' (or 'union' as optional) OR you would NOT have a 'consistent' system. A non-consistent system is the backdrop of all existence. But when we create a system of logic, we are creating a language to reference something 'consistent' within the whole. Without a consistency IN the logic you are creating, this reduces to NOT reasoning at all. You could have one answer in one moment but change in another without OTHERS having a means to interpret you. While this IS a political/social abusive tactic that some use (like Gaslighting), it has no meaning AS 'logic' if it cannot have those significant features understood IN MEANING.

You can THEN create a system syntactically. You cannot even use the same symbol to stand for anything if those minimal universal rules ABOUT PATTERNS did not exist. Notice that reality apart from logic permits inconsistency in some absolute ways. But then EACH concept would have to be 'absolutely isolated' from each other and not be able to be used to communicate anything because each instance of expressing anything would be absolutely unique.

You need something to compare to with the recognition of their difference or the 'system' created without is just a mix of indeterminable nonsense.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:33 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:11 pm

Competence in philosophy requires familiarity with its history, with major historical works, with the history and development of various ideas.

So the history of the laws of logic determines one's competency in them?

Competency in logic definitely requires familiarity with its history, yes.

So logic was developed on behalf of humans and exists as an invention of group agreement in determining truth from falsity. This is the bandwagon fallacy.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:21 am If (P=P)=(-P=-P) then P=-P through the law of identity which both P and -P share.

If (P=P)≠(-P=-P) then the law of identity is not equal to itself given both P and -P exist through the law of identity.

I think Terrapin gave some great examples of the problem when he used addition operation in place of your choice of the '=' within the brackets. You are confusing the meaning of the parts to the wholes and vice versa. The whole expression, "(P=P)=(-P=-P) means that the '=' sign between the two parts as wholes are LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT by the bolded versions of '=', not to whatever P or -P refers to. The truth of the bracketed '=' signs are what the unbolded '=' refers to. You are incorrectly presuming the '=' in both cases to mean the same. This is why most systems use alternate symbols when expressing this, such as....

(P = P) ≡ (-P = -P)

The ONLY concern for referencing the "Law of identity" with respect to logic, though, is to assert that for WHICHEVER system you are using or defining, SOMETHING has to remain 'consistent'. The law is the reference to WHATEVER 'consistency' is needed in ANY system. The other two universal laws are rephrasing this by different perspectives. For instance, the "Law of the Excluded Middle" refers to expressing what is 'not consistent' as one may define something in the given system by contrast:

P ≢ -P ...says that wherever P is assumed, -P cannot be assumed also.

That is, there has to be some rule(s) in any system of logic that discriminates between what it means for something to be 'inconsistent' so that the system can decide what to eliminate. If there is no elimination rule, then the system is not defined as 'logical' because it cannot be used to 'consistently' decide anything. You don't want a calculator, for instance, that has a 'logic' that has different answers for the same inputs, otherwise, it lacks any usefulness. [Well, perhaps one could use such a possible inconsistent machine, if it were possible, to find 'random' numbers. But this too still requires at least some meaning of 'consistency', such as the use of such a particular machine to be used 'consistently' to find random numbers.]

The third law of any 'logic' is just another extension of the other two that asserts one must decide whether to accept (or reject) contradictions in some 'consistent' manner. The last law defines what is 'inconsistent' with respect to the first law's defining of what is 'consistent'; then the third asserts that the first two rules in essence have to evaluate ONE of the two as what one expects of the system. In essence, if one wants to deny contradictions, then it says we toss out things that match to the second law. If you wanted a machine to favor 'inconsistency', like to find a machine that seeks random things, you might want such a mechanism to keep 'contradictions' as a means for an output.

Either way, the Law of Identity is not about the symbols specifically but to the agreement in the MEANING of the symbols you choose. You have to have something that is defining of "the same", something that clarifies "the difference", and whether you accept only one or both. Selecting both is the same as asserting that you accept contradictions for some practical purpose.

Note that selecting to keep contradiction is more about an 'open' system, such as what you might think of a sense organ to do: it doesn't necessarily require DENYING input because it is not the COMPLETE closed system of logic that the sense-to-brain-to-motor system of the whole deals with. So you can have a PARTIAL 'logic' system that is OPEN to accepting information without actually eliminating input values.

And I addressed the addition example, 1+3 and 2+2 are variations of the same thing. They are the same thing expressed in different ways. 1+3 and 2+2 equivocate through a third assertion of 4, yet they are not the same thing. Applying letters to the numbers, where each letter is a variable, observes the equations appearing differently as (a+c) and (b+b).


If the "=" symbol has multiple meanings then by default it is subject to equivocation. Simply being able to seperate one "=" from another, and replacing it with another symbol results in equivocation occuring. Dually to necessitate the symbols as subject to the meaning assigned necessitates logic as subject to a certain degree of subjectivity. If truth is derived from meaning and meaning is ground in the symbols assigned, multiple symbols for the same thing result in multiple meanings.


(P=P) = (-P=-P) observes both P and -P equivocate through the law of identity, both P and -P are subject to the law of identity as P=P and -P=-P. To say "P=P" is to say "P". To say "-P=-P" is to say -P. The law of identity is not seperate from P and -P respectively.

The underlined sentence in the last paragrapsh is incorrect. To say, "P=P", is to say EQUAL symbols (representing real meanings) exist. The '=' sign is being defined, NOT the "P". The variable, "P" is a 'dummy' variable, not a particular nor constant variable.

So...

The law of identity is subject to the law of identity: (P=P)=(P=P) thus showing identity as merely repetition of symbols. Both P and -P equivocate through the law of identity thus necessitating P=-P because both share the same foundations.

An example of this can be shown in a glass half full of water and half empty, both the emptiness and water share the same form through the glass. They equivocate through a common median. It is the median which allows for equivocation.

You are ignoring the bolded and underlined.

When we colloqually use '=', it is similar to using, "is", in that the exact meaning of "equality" is only an "implication" at the very least. In computer C-language, for instance, "=" is an ASSIGNING IMPLICANT that takes the value of what is on the right as a CONSTANT to be placed (or replaced) into the VARIABLE on the left. But the comparative version in C-language is "==", which represents the same meaning of 'identity', not the regular '='.

When a system is formally defined, it SEPARATES the symbols when speaking formally, but the text writer of the logic being expressed can have its author speak colloqually IN CONTEXT, ...especially when trying to teach it to others who initially lack an understanding of the distinction. But when being proper to expression using the system, one requires separating the meanings of 'equality' apart from 'identity'. An 'identity' is a "logical equivalence" not an OPERATION. But the 'equivalent' operation of "identity" is the coincidence operator, not the 'and' nor 'or'. That is, Identity ANY comparative operation that doesn't alter what is initially operated on. If A goes in the 'coincidence machine', it gives the same A out, no matter what it means.

There are also other KINDS of 'equivalences' that logic recognizes beyond these. The 'congruency' of SIMILAR things, like triangles in geometry, are a form of 'equivalence' that refers to one model triangle of some specific set of sides of equal ratios define the class of triangles as the same, not merely a perfect identity. There is also something called, "idempotence" (identical power in action), which refers to same repeated actions, like that (A and A) = A for any number of repeated conjuncts, like,

(A and A and A and A...and A).

"Is" in language is used for both in the same colloqual confusion:

"It is what it is" has the first "is" be the comparative identity meaning, while the second maps the assignment of the constant variable, "what" stand in for the general varying variable, "It".

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:09 pm

I think Terrapin gave some great examples of the problem when he used addition operation in place of your choice of the '=' within the brackets. You are confusing the meaning of the parts to the wholes and vice versa. The whole expression, "(P=P)=(-P=-P) means that the '=' sign between the two parts as wholes are LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT by the bolded versions of '=', not to whatever P or -P refers to. The truth of the bracketed '=' signs are what the unbolded '=' refers to. You are incorrectly presuming the '=' in both cases to mean the same. This is why most systems use alternate symbols when expressing this, such as....

(P = P) ≡ (-P = -P)

The ONLY concern for referencing the "Law of identity" with respect to logic, though, is to assert that for WHICHEVER system you are using or defining, SOMETHING has to remain 'consistent'. The law is the reference to WHATEVER 'consistency' is needed in ANY system. The other two universal laws are rephrasing this by different perspectives. For instance, the "Law of the Excluded Middle" refers to expressing what is 'not consistent' as one may define something in the given system by contrast:

P ≢ -P ...says that wherever P is assumed, -P cannot be assumed also.

That is, there has to be some rule(s) in any system of logic that discriminates between what it means for something to be 'inconsistent' so that the system can decide what to eliminate. If there is no elimination rule, then the system is not defined as 'logical' because it cannot be used to 'consistently' decide anything. You don't want a calculator, for instance, that has a 'logic' that has different answers for the same inputs, otherwise, it lacks any usefulness. [Well, perhaps one could use such a possible inconsistent machine, if it were possible, to find 'random' numbers. But this too still requires at least some meaning of 'consistency', such as the use of such a particular machine to be used 'consistently' to find random numbers.]

The third law of any 'logic' is just another extension of the other two that asserts one must decide whether to accept (or reject) contradictions in some 'consistent' manner. The last law defines what is 'inconsistent' with respect to the first law's defining of what is 'consistent'; then the third asserts that the first two rules in essence have to evaluate ONE of the two as what one expects of the system. In essence, if one wants to deny contradictions, then it says we toss out things that match to the second law. If you wanted a machine to favor 'inconsistency', like to find a machine that seeks random things, you might want such a mechanism to keep 'contradictions' as a means for an output.

Either way, the Law of Identity is not about the symbols specifically but to the agreement in the MEANING of the symbols you choose. You have to have something that is defining of "the same", something that clarifies "the difference", and whether you accept only one or both. Selecting both is the same as asserting that you accept contradictions for some practical purpose.

Note that selecting to keep contradiction is more about an 'open' system, such as what you might think of a sense organ to do: it doesn't necessarily require DENYING input because it is not the COMPLETE closed system of logic that the sense-to-brain-to-motor system of the whole deals with. So you can have a PARTIAL 'logic' system that is OPEN to accepting information without actually eliminating input values.

And I addressed the addition example, 1+3 and 2+2 are variations of the same thing. They are the same thing expressed in different ways. 1+3 and 2+2 equivocate through a third assertion of 4, yet they are not the same thing. Applying letters to the numbers, where each letter is a variable, observes the equations appearing differently as (a+c) and (b+b).


If the "=" symbol has multiple meanings then by default it is subject to equivocation. Simply being able to seperate one "=" from another, and replacing it with another symbol results in equivocation occuring. Dually to necessitate the symbols as subject to the meaning assigned necessitates logic as subject to a certain degree of subjectivity. If truth is derived from meaning and meaning is ground in the symbols assigned, multiple symbols for the same thing result in multiple meanings.


(P=P) = (-P=-P) observes both P and -P equivocate through the law of identity, both P and -P are subject to the law of identity as P=P and -P=-P. To say "P=P" is to say "P". To say "-P=-P" is to say -P. The law of identity is not seperate from P and -P respectively.

The underlined sentence in the last paragrapsh is incorrect. To say, "P=P", is to say EQUAL symbols (representing real meanings) exist. The '=' sign is being defined, NOT the "P". The variable, "P" is a 'dummy' variable, not a particular nor constant variable.

So...

The law of identity is subject to the law of identity: (P=P)=(P=P) thus showing identity as merely repetition of symbols. Both P and -P equivocate through the law of identity thus necessitating P=-P because both share the same foundations.

An example of this can be shown in a glass half full of water and half empty, both the emptiness and water share the same form through the glass. They equivocate through a common median. It is the median which allows for equivocation.

You are ignoring the bolded and underlined.

When we colloqually use '=', it is similar to using, "is", in that the exact meaning of "equality" is only an "implication" at the very least. In computer C-language, for instance, "=" is an ASSIGNING IMPLICANT that takes the value of what is on the right as a CONSTANT to be placed (or replaced) into the VARIABLE on the left. But the comparative version in C-language is "==", which represents the same meaning of 'identity', not the regular '='.

When a system is formally defined, it SEPARATES the symbols when speaking formally, but the text writer of the logic being expressed can have its author speak colloqually IN CONTEXT, ...especially when trying to teach it to others who initially lack an understanding of the distinction. But when being proper to expression using the system, one requires separating the meanings of 'equality' apart from 'identity'. An 'identity' is a "logical equivalence" not an OPERATION. But the 'equivalent' operation of "identity" is the coincidence operator, not the 'and' nor 'or'. That is, Identity ANY comparative operation that doesn't alter what is initially operated on. If A goes in the 'coincidence machine', it gives the same A out, no matter what it means.

There are also other KINDS of 'equivalences' that logic recognizes beyond these. The 'congruency' of SIMILAR things, like triangles in geometry, are a form of 'equivalence' that refers to one model triangle of some specific set of sides of equal ratios define the class of triangles as the same, not merely a perfect identity. There is also something called, "idempotence" (identical power in action), which refers to same repeated actions, like that (A and A) = A for any number of repeated conjuncts, like,

(A and A and A and A...and A).

"Is" in language is used for both in the same colloqual confusion:

"It is what it is" has the first "is" be the comparative identity meaning, while the second maps the assignment of the constant variable, "what" stand in for the general varying variable, "It".

P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

"=" is undefined except through P. It is the repetition of P which allows "=" to have any meaning and only through P. The absence of repetition of "=" necessitates "=" as being empty of meaning. This repetition of P necessitates P as having the primary identity as it occurs through repetition.. "P is P" necessitates more than one P existing as there are multiple instances of P under "P is P" thus one P is different from another due to different positions of P in time and space.

When referring to the identity of P, as in one instance, it is best just to use "P" alone.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:02 pm Okay, but why are you defining feedback in this context as an external input?

Because that's where the ground is. Outside the place where ideas happen.

Where the ground is?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:09 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:33 am
So the history of the laws of logic determines one's competency in them?

Competency in logic definitely requires familiarity with its history, yes.

So logic was developed on behalf of humans and exists as an invention of group agreement in determining truth from falsity. This is the bandwagon fallacy.

Logic is a manner of thinking about relations. There's a long history of different logics/different approaches to logic or different species of logic that one must be familiar with to be competent in that field.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:56 pm Where the ground is?

The thing which determines the applicability of your ideas.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:06 pm P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

Again, in philosophy, "P" is conventionally just a variable for a proposition. I explained this to you already. That doesn't stop being the case just because you ignore it or don't understand it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:58 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:56 pm Where the ground is?

The thing which determines the applicability of your ideas.

That thing is your brain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:06 pm
P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

"=" is undefined except through P. It is the repetition of P which allows "=" to have any meaning and only through P. The absence of repetition of "=" necessitates "=" as being empty of meaning. This repetition of P necessitates P as having the primary identity as it occurs through repetition.. "P is P" necessitates more than one P existing as there are multiple instances of P under "P is P" thus one P is different from another due to different positions of P in time and space.

When referring to the identity of P, as in one instance, it is best just to use "P" alone.

This HAS been tried but 'equally' fails (mind the pun). The use of it CAN be done if one uses 'absolutes' but people interpret this concept in worse defiance than your point. That is, you CAN define everything as 'absolutely unique', but as soon as I use any language, like English here, to set up the colloquial part of explaining the theory/system, you are forced to use the 26 letters of the alphabet in which the argument could only use each letter once. That would be 26 letters maximum to explain the whole system!

Those main 'laws of logic' are about the language we use to express the meaning of identity only. Otherwise you can only mention the term exactly once (as an 'absolute' instance) and just PRAY that others could somehow intuit what you mean by mere chance.

The better way is to permit a class of 'variables' that have NO direct meaning as containers of particular concepts to refer to WHAT the variables MEAN, not their literal symbols. As such, a set theory type of expression of identity is their, "Postulate of 'extenstion'" ["extension" referring to the nature of the symbols to EXTEND to the meaning, beyond the symbol, just as our senses act as symbols of reality EXTERNAL to ourselves.] Here is an example of their first postulate (of most if not all systems of set theories):

(A = B) means identically that ((Given x is any element of A, that has the same element in B) AND [also that](Given y is any element of B, that has the same element in A))

This keeps the variable's distinct in a relatively 'absolute' way, that DEFINES the meaning of the equal sign, "=". But notice the repetition of the symbols cannot be avoided regardless. This particular set theory definition does this to clarify that the meanings of A and B refer to their contents or members, not the symbol as a whole class.

Now, if you still disagree, I can only ask if YOU can express any logical system that improves upon these. And, as I've asked before of others, can you define ANY system without reference to the postulated "laws of logic" referring to the meaning of "consistency, inconsistency, and contradiction"? All we need is one clear example that cannot be confusing.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm Maybe you misread me here? When I said the "laws of (all) logics", I mean the three main ones that require at least some understanding of identity, difference (non-identity), and some restriction of accepting contradiction between these two, ...not the fact that one can invent a system of reasoning beyond these rules. They define 'law' itself because the only means OF any system of logic requires CLEAR rules (ie, ...laws) of what some pattern it. Given,

Perhaps you are mishearing me. I am using a broader conception of "logics" than you are. I mean ALL logics. Without any restrictions.

Those which accept identity; and those which reject identity.
Those which accept non-contradiction; and those which reject non-contradiction.
Those which accept game/interactive semantics; and those which reject game/interactive semantics.
Those that demand clear rules; and those that demand unclear rules.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm (1)X
(2)X
(3)not-X
(4)X and not-X

Sure! Suppose X is the function which returns the current time. What the hell does not-X mean?!?!

Heck! suppose that X is bound to the number 5. What the heck does not-X mean ?!?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm ...you need to accept that SOME meaning of X in (1) can be mapped to another X, as in (2), such that you call these "the same"

What the hell do you mean by "the same"? What meaning do you assign to "sameness"?

Here is the example I spoke about. x = current_time, it is obvious to any non-idiot that x = x is false,

Because the x on the left occurs before the x on the right IN TIME. Therefore it will always be false!

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm , while what is 'not-X', being accepted equally as necessary, to express what X is not as in (3) and then a meaning of their 'conjunction' (or 'union' as optional) OR you would NOT have a 'consistent' system. A non-consistent system is the backdrop of all existence. But when we create a system of logic, we are creating a language to reference something 'consistent' within the whole.

You can't even define the "consistency" predicate! Because if you could then you can always express this:

consistent(any-logic-system) -> True

Also, what the hell is "inconsistent" about a logical clock?!?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm Without a consistency IN the logic you are creating, this reduces to NOT reasoning at all.

Because why? Because you think you have a definition of "reasoning" that I should give a shit about?

Being able to tell the current time is NOT reasoning. Because Scott Mayers says so.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm You could have one answer in one moment but change in another without OTHERS having a means to interpret you. While this IS a political/social abusive tactic that some use (like Gaslighting), it has no meaning AS 'logic' if it cannot have those significant features understood IN MEANING.

Which part of x = x is not meaningful to you when X means "current time" ?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:08 pm You need something to compare to with the recognition of their difference or the 'system' created without is just a mix of indeterminable nonsense.

blah blah blah.

It determines the current time! It's only nonsense if you are a sophist.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:59 pm That thing is your brain.

Your brain works without external feedback!?!?!

Those things you call "senses" are there just for decoration?

You may have been projecting your solipsism onto me all along!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:09 pm

I cannot interpret what you said past the first instance of a repeated letter. Sorry. It could make sense or not but I have no referent meaning.

[By the way, you ASSUMED without asserting that in your program assignment to system time that time itself IS different in each call. But you CALL the program also at different times. You could have just as simply defined your function without reference to anything and have it return "false". You are thus mistaking the symbol assignment of the its definition to make what the container HOLDS as '0' [false]. This is no different than merely declaring a variable with a predesignated value of your choice.

var Something = 0
var Nothing = 1

See I can play that SYMANTIC game too. Now try to express what "something" or "nothing" or "0" or "1" mean?

When we initially learn, we are DENOTED some sensation that coincides in time with another sensation. For example, the first time you might teach a child of no language (or a different one) "chair" (as the sound) to the visual PARTICULAR representation of your Dad's place of sitting. Your brain requires distinguishing between times as well as distinct sensations that only BEG you to copy that behavior. Non-compliance to learning it would be a hint that something is fucked up in your brain's ability to associate. But as long as you continue to live, this may not be a problem. You could be mentally handicapped and still 'function' as being alive. The lack of one to NOT comply by example, such as saying "chair" at everything, would have some 'logic' based upon the fact that you might not be able to rationalize. But you cannot assume that the survival of such a person unable to associate makes their system of expression valid such that if you were to follow such a defective person's choice of using "chair" to associate to anything and everything that you could 'successfully' communicate anything by its intended meaning. That is, the relative rationale of the person unable to understand a coinciding association of sensations lacks any power to commicate at all.

So, you are falsely assuming the syntax alone suffices. Have you ever gone through the metaproof of a simple symbolic language like, Propositional/Sentential Logic? The first stage is to define the syntax and then the grammar. But then you require demonstrating that the MEANING (representing given accepted constants, like "true" versus "false", or "0" versus "1"), you have to go through EACH postulate of the system to demonstrate the MEANINGS do not permit you to go from false premises to true conclusions (the complementary meaning of difference).

...which raises the point about the term, "not". The actual meaning colloquially is to 'deny' some posited assumption. But you make the same mistake of the religious person arguing against me for asserting "athiesm" given "theism" has been coincidentally defined prior to my examination. The actual logical meaning is usually more appropriately understood as "non-" rather than 'not-", which refers to ANY possible thing OR no thing at all. You CAN add color to differentiate these meanings in your system. But you still require having some referent of binary distinction AT LEAST.

So, a negation in a primary logic refers at least to some 'complement', not the coinciding fact that it negates as a denial of what is posited.

I understand what you are thinking. But if you think that you CAN define a system without having a MINimum meaning of "nothing" and at least a MAXimum meaning for "something", then you cannot expect such a system to get past the introduction with meaning. Totality as a whole can be non-logical and it is, given it includes nothing as a minimal subset of everything.

I actually found a means TO begin with a consistent system of a minimal requirement in a way that you can THEN, within that system, define meaning to something and nothing. But it begs that you postulate the system I'm using still by at least recognizing that something is not nothing.

You can define "something" as "something AND nothing" but then this swaps the meaning such that when you define "nothing" as "nothing OR something", the opposite meanings of our colloquial understanding are flipped. But you need some apriori acceptance of 'consistency' and 'inconsistency' as existing when defining a system, and have to chose which to eliminate. If you eliminated here "nothing", you'd opt to treat "nothing OR something", that defines "or", to be what "and" means and vice versa. If you can find some other means of expressing what you intend without using a program (because it begs its use of machine logic as 'consistent' underneath this ...or is a broken machine.), please give me an example using the simplest language. [You might have to seek a mulivariable logic to try this, like K={0, 1, 2} as trinary, for instance.]

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:16 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:59 pm That thing is your brain.

Your brain works without external feedback!?!?!

Your brain determines the applicability of your ideas. Not something else. If you think something else does this, name the something else and describe how it makes the determination. How would something else make any sort of assessment?