Philosophy Now Forum

I think if I've had anything useful to say on this topic, I've already said it.
Let us know how it goes.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:20 pm I think if I've had anything useful to say on this topic, I've already said it.
Let us know how it goes.

You did great, thanks.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:23 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 5:26 pm Unless we have the correct/incorrect dichotomy computer science people
will reject what I am saying as vague and thus having no relevance to
computer science what-so-ever.

Sure, I didn't really know the context.

I also must have the support of linguists and philosophers of language
otherwise the computer science people will construe my ideas as baseless.

Well, I'm just some guy on the internet and I'm not a philosopher or linguist, though I've read and mulled a chunk of the former and a smattering of the latter field.

Incorrect statements are assertions of natural language that cannot possibly
be resolved to true or false because of some fault of the statement.

In the formal languages of mathematics they would be propositions
that cannot possible have a Boolean value (of true or false).

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was composed by Noam Chomsky
in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is
grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless ... _furiously

Is simply false since there cannot be any "Colorless green ideas" we can know that
they don't "sleep furiously "

I'd say that sentence of Chomsky's is nonsense, not false.

It has been 2000 years and many modern day philosophers still do not understand
"This sentence is not true."
Cannot be resolved to a truth value because it is not a truth bearer because
it is self-contradictory. Recent papers are still trying to resolve it to a truth value.

That seems strange.

Incorrect questions are questions that because of some fault of the question
cannot possibly have a correct answer.
(This is a brand new category that I am establishing)

If 'incorrect' works in with computer scientists, then use 'incorrect'. You know my issues with that in other contexts.

Incorrect polar (yes/no) questions are polar questions because of some fault
of the question cannot possibly have a correct (yes/no) answer.
(This is a brand new category that I am establishing)

(1) What time it is (yes or no)?
(2) "This sentence is not true." Is it (a) true or (b) false?
(3) "Can you correctly answer "no" to this question?"
(4) When posed to Carol: "Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

The reason that this is important is that all of computer science is artificially
constrained by a notions of undecidability that includes the inability of correctly
answering incorrect questions thus preventing huge strides in more powerful
computation under the misconception that these advancements are impossible.

The key life or extinction of humanity depends on these advancements coming
to fruition. We really need to mathematically formalize the notion of (analytic)
truth so that dangerous counter-factual propaganda can be utterly disavowed
every which way before it gets any chance to take root.

So, you think this will help in, for example, politics?

Once we overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem by correctly
formalizing the notion of analytical truth, then a smart chatbot
could form every possible argument at every language level and
make people lying about election fraud and climate change look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

Here we have the IRREFUTABLE PROOF of what you are 'trying to' achieve here WILL NEVER WORK.

What you are ESSENTIALLY DOING is WANTING TO be 'THE ONE' who gets to DECIDE what is true and what is NOT.

Now, WHO is to SAY who is 'lying about election fraud' and who is NOT? And,

WHO is to SAY who is 'lying about climate change' and who is NOT?

OBVIOUSLY there is NO 'formula', which could be PUT IN to a computer nor system that could be ABLE TO TELL.

Now, since 'election fraud' has taken place HOW is ANY 'thing' going to KNOW when one is LYING ABOUT 'election fraud' or NOT?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm While we continue to allow Tarski to remain unrefuted despicable
lies can be passed off as legitimate opinion.

As soon as so-called 'tarski becomes refuted', then LIES WILL CONTINUE, and there is NOTHING that ANY computer nor 'system' could do TO REVEAL and SHOW the ACTUAL Truth in relation to ALL of the LIES that 'you', adult human beings, keep EXPRESSING.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:34 pm This can cause the
extinction of humanity and the end of Democracy.

The quicker the end of 'democracy' then the quicker a BETTER 'Life' and living can BECOME.

And, with the extinction of the human being the rest of ALL of the other animals might find 'Life', and living, BETTER, as well.

By the way, just because you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there was NO so-called 'election fraud' and that there IS ABSOLUTELY 'climate change', then this does NOT mean that you could put some 'thing' into a computer, which would EXPOSE what 'you', "yourself", consider to be LIES, but well may NOT BE, ANYWAY.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:25 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:14 am It must be the case that the philosophy of language people are
the thought leaders that teach others that when a question has
no correct answer only because something is wrong with the
question that means that the question is incorrect. None of your
suggestions clearly place the blame on the question.

I think they do. A question that is unaswerable defeats itself and you cannot blame something/someone for not answering an unanswerable question. For example. You cannot say the software should have answered or Carol should have answered it.

The conventional term for this case is that the question is
undecidable as if there was some difficulty making up one's mind.
Because this has been the mindset since 1936 we need very
sharp contrast to rip away the bias away.

If something is undecidable that is the quality of the question or choice. Why didn't you decide? It's undecidable.
Not: I am indecisive. Or I am stymied.
Those adjective apply to the question not the potential responder. They modify the question. What kind of question? That kind.

A tough question, leaves room for a response. And any adjective that means someone might be able to answer it correctly. Or really answer at all. The adjectives I list all blame the question.

Why didn't you resolve it? It was unresolvable. Oh, ok.

would be simply taken a synonyms for undecidable.

I like undecidable also.

It's a bit like a problem cannot be incorrect. Perhaps it is not solvable. If so we label it so. The people who try to solve it are not to blame (except for wasting their time).

An incorrect problem. ehhh
An unsolvable problem. Ah.

And incorrect question. ehhh
An unanswerable problem. Ah.

I can't see how you can possibly blame someone/something for not answering an unanswerable question.

Though I think we can see that some questions cannot be answered and it is must harder to be sure a problem cannot be solved.

Unless I can get a very broad consensus

I will ASK AGAIN, How MANY is there in a 'broad consensus', and, How MANY in a 'very broad consensus'?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm that questions that have no
correct answer because there is something wrong with the question
are {incorrect questions} the status quo of blaming the software
will remain.

BUT WHO is BLAMING the 'software'?

Is that a 'very broad consensus'?

Also, 'What is the best tasting ice cream?' has absolutely NO 'correct answer', BUT 'that question' is CERTAINLY NOT an 'incorrect question'.

As "iwannoplato" has been VERY SUCCESSFULLY POINTING OUT and SHOWING, from my perspective, that YOUR USE of the term 'incorrect question' is NOT REALLY WORKING OUT AT ALL for you.

So, WHEN I SAID that I would go along WITH your term 'incorrect question', then I think you will find IS the 'broadest consensus' you are going to get here. And thus you would have been better off EXPLAINING, EXACTLY, HOW you are going TO ACHIEVE what you so desperately WANT TO ACHIEVE here, WHEN you HAD YOUR CHANCE.

As the previous 'broader consensus' you HAD is now SLOWLY getting NARROWER and NARROWER.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm It is also the case that people that point out that there is
something wrong with the question are ridiculed as crackpots.

I have NEVER experienced 'this' BEFORE. But, then again, I have NOT spend so many years on ANY OBVIOUSLY ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL question.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm Math and logic people tend to be of the religion that math and logic
are inherently infallible and anyone believing otherwise must be nuts.

Name ANY of the 'specific' RELIGIONS.

Just about ALL people ANY form of club, group, or society tend to BELIEVE that 'their, collective, views' are 'inherently infallible' and ANY one BELIEVING otherwise MUST BE so-called 'nuts'.

Just LOOK AT 'you' and YOUR VIEWS here "peteolcott", which BELIEVE are 'inherently infallible' ALSO, AND if ANY one BELIEVES otherwise, then they MUST BE 'nuts', correct?

Also, and by the way, WITH ANY and ALL of those clubs, groups, or societies of 'people' 'they' ALSO DO exactly what you are so deseparately 'trying to' DO here. That is; GATHER MORE and MORE 'members', through and from a 'continually broader consensus', and thus continually GARNISH MORE and MORE 'support', for what IS, essentially, your OWN BELIEF here that YOUR VIEW here IS 'inherently infallible', so that, eventually, you can ultimately LOOK AT, VIEW, and JUDGE "others" with OPPOSING BELIEFS as BEING 'nuts'.

Oh, and by the way, IF 'your VIEW and BELIEF' here is AS GOOD AS you IMAGINE it is, then WHY do you NEED a 'very broader consensus' BEFORE you just DEVELOP 'it' and INSTALL 'it' INTO the 'world wide web', ANYWAY?

Surely, you do NOT NEED ANY one ELSE to do 'this' for you, right?

If you have some formula or algorithm that COULD DECIPHER 'lies' FROM 'truth', then what are you WAITING FOR, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:46 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm that questions that have no
correct answer because there is something wrong with the question
are {incorrect questions} the status quo of blaming the software
will remain.

BUT WHO is BLAMING the 'software'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

All computer scientists and mathematicians blame the software for not
correctly answering a contradictory question from the halt decider's point of view.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 3:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:46 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:21 pm that questions that have no
correct answer because there is something wrong with the question
are {incorrect questions} the status quo of blaming the software
will remain.

BUT WHO is BLAMING the 'software'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

All computer scientists and mathematicians blame the software for not
correctly answering a contradictory question from the halt decider's point of view.

Okay.