Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:09 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
READ and interpret the rest in context. You only save grace of it NOT being an insult if you mean that "YOU do not understand what he is saying."
I understand perfectly well what he is saying.

"I am not wrong"
"All the counter-evidence you are providing is not proving me wrong"
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
The term, "not smart" may be appropriate. But then you still have the onus to prove WHY for ASSERTING such a conclusive belief unexpressed.
I have expressed it! Are you not paying attention?!?

Pete cannot prove himself wrong.
Pete is not stating his falsifiability criterion.
There is nothing that any of us can say that can convince Pete that he is wrong.

In my universe that is sufficient to dismiss him AND to call him dumb.

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

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:45 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:09 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
READ and interpret the rest in context. You only save grace of it NOT being an insult if you mean that "YOU do not understand what he is saying."
I understand perfectly well what he is saying.

"I am not wrong"
"All the counter-evidence you are providing is not proving me wrong"
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
The term, "not smart" may be appropriate. But then you still have the onus to prove WHY for ASSERTING such a conclusive belief unexpressed.
I have expressed it! Are you not paying attention?!?

Pete cannot prove himself wrong.
Pete is not stating his falsifiability criterion.
There is nothing that any of us can say that can convince Pete that he is wrong.

In my universe that is sufficient to dismiss him AND to call him dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
You are likely misintpreting him. He said,
I know that I know that I know that I am correct.

which is relatively ambiguous to be sure, but can mean that he is confident in something he knows only. But his fault is in assuming:
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
Everyone merely presumes that I am incorrect and then proceeds on that basis.
My correct refutation of the Halting Problem proofs will change all that.
...which means he presumes that he posited something understood and with clarity but that you or others are denying him his meaning of what he is positing for denying he is 'correct'. The error is that he hasn't been understood but thinks he has and so your contribution by asserting him dumb means that you DO understand him but think it is 'wrong', for which you require proving why.

I don't think you understood him yet and so cannot say that he is 'wrong' by your implicit insult. All you can say is that you do not follow.

But lets let him respond because my point if not shared by you will only fill HIS thread up with unnecessary junk. I think you need to be more accurate in expressing specifically what you think he is saying before you can be sure you disagree with him.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:45 pm
I don't think you understood him yet and so cannot say that he is 'wrong' by your implicit insult. All you can say is that you do not follow.
Scott, I don't need to understand ANYTHING Pete says.

If Pete cannot provide the criteria for proving himself wrong, then that is all the evidence I need to dismiss him.
If he doesn't expend any effort making his hypothesis falsifiable, you shouldn't expend any effort falsifying it for him.

And since he is expending all of his energy trying to confirm, rather than disconfirm his theory - that should be all the evidence you need that he's stuck in in a confirmation bias loop.

You are over-thinking/over-complicating this. I didn't say that he is "wrong". I said that he is not even wrong.

This is a fundamental dysfunction in the philosophical mind. Trying to be "right", rather than "less wrong".

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:20 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:52 pm
Within the context of your expression: "know" means subjective assessment.
Yes Pete. All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective.
Therefore arithmetic is subjective and when your boss cheats you on your paycheck it
is merely an unresolvable difference of opinion.

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:27 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm

Code: Select all

from universe import *

assert Skepdick.likes(Apples)
assert Skepdick.likes(Peaches)
assert not Skepdick.likes(Oranges)

print('All assertions are TRUE')
Proposition:
Here is a linguistic expression: I know that apples are delicious.
Apples taste good.

Propositional attitude:
assert Skepdick.likes(Apples)
Skepdic believes that apple taste good.

Not the same thing.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:35 pm

PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:20 pm
Therefore arithmetic is subjective and when your boss cheats you on your paycheck it
is merely an unresolvable difference of opinion.
Please help me understand how arithmetic can help you determine how much you are supposed to get paid?

I would've thought that number is a matter of negotiation - contract law. Not arithmetic.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:36 pm

PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:27 pm
Proposition:
Here is a linguistic expression: I know that apples are delicious.
Apples taste good.

Propositional attitude:
assert Skepdick.likes(Apples)
Skepdic believes that apple taste good.
Are you really going to make me construct the grammar for you?
On a thumb-suck, it will probably leverage reflection and implement a self.knows method on the Skepdick object to make assertions about Apples and tastiness.

I am willing to, but not for free. I will gladly spend the 15 minutes doing it if are willing to bet money on it.

How does $1000 sound?
PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:27 pm
Not the same thing.
How have you ASSERTED that?

Please define the formal semantics for the "sameness" operator.

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:06 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:52 pm
Within the context of your expression: "know" means subjective assessment.
Yes Pete. All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective.
So if your boss agreed to pay you $12 per hour and you both agreed that your worked 40 hours
your boss would be free to have the opinion that $12 * 40 = $10 for a gross pay of $10

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 pm

PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:06 pm
So if your boss agreed to pay you $12 per hour and you both agreed that your worked 40 hours

your boss would be free to have the opinion that $12 * 40 = $10 for a gross pay of $10
Pete, you really don't get it, do you?

The disagreement can be entirely about the value of the inputs, and not about the rules of multiplication.
Your boss says you worked 1 hour and didn't show up for work again. You say you worked 40 hours.

He says: $12 * 1 = $12
You say: $12 * 40 = $480

Who is the cheater?

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:56 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:06 pm
So if your boss agreed to pay you $12 per hour and you both agreed that your worked 40 hours

your boss would be free to have the opinion that $12 * 40 = $10 for a gross pay of $10
Pete, you really don't get it, do you?

The disagreement can be entirely about the value of the inputs, and not about the rules of multiplication.
Your boss says you worked 1 hour and didn't show up for work again. You say you worked 40 hours.

He says: $12 * 1 = $12
You say: $12 * 40 = $480

Who is the cheater?
You are the cheater when you say that:
"All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective."
Because you know that 12 * 40 = 480 is not subjective.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:21 am

PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:56 pm
You are the cheater when you say that:
"All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective."
Because you know that 12 * 40 = 480 is not subjective.
It is 100% subjective because it is subject to choice of a number system.

In Quinary 12*40 = 3410
In Senary 12*40 = 2120
In Septenary 12*40 = 1254
In Octal 12*40 = 500
In Nonary 12*40 = 583
in Decimal 12* 40 = 480

You really need to examine your philosophical foundations, Pete. Will help you figure out that objectivity is a pipe dream.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:32 am

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:21 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:56 pm
You are the cheater when you say that:
"All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective."
Because you know that 12 * 40 = 480 is not subjective.
It is 100% subjective because it is subject to choice of a number system.

In Quinary 12*40 = 3410
In Senary 12*40 = 2120
In Septenary 12*40 = 1254
In Octal 12*40 = 500
In Nonary 12*40 = 583
in Decimal 12* 40 = 480

You really need to examine your philosophical foundations, Pete. Will help you figure out that objectivity is a pipe dream.
The number system for payroll calculations is standardized as decimal.
We would have a much better dialogue if you didn't place disagreement as your highest priority.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:37 am

PeteOlcott wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:32 am
The number system for payroll calculations is standardized as decimal.
And I reject your standards. All of them.
PeteOlcott wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:32 am
We would have a much better dialogue if you didn't place disagreement as your highest priority.
We would indeed have a much better dialogue if you didn't place linguistic prescription as your highest priority.

If I so choose to contradict myself, then I will.
If I so choose to use self-reference/recursion, then I will.
They are powerful expression tools.

You keep making it your job to tell me that I am not allowed to use powerful expression tools.

You hate free speech.

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:41 am

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:37 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:32 am
The number system for payroll calculations is standardized as decimal.
And I reject your standards. All of them.
PeteOlcott wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:32 am
We would have a much better dialogue if you didn't place disagreement as your highest priority.
We would indeed have a much better dialogue if you didn't place linguistic prescription as your highest priority.

If I so choose to contradict myself, then I will.
If I so choose to use self-reference/recursion, then I will.
They are powerful expression tools.

You keep making it your job to tell me that I am not allowed to use powerful expression tools.

You hate free speech.
If you intentionally contradict yourself that makes you a liar and a waste of my time.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:44 am

PeteOlcott wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:41 am
If you intentionally contradict yourself that makes you a liar and a waste of my time.
The system you are building is complete (by design), therefore it is necessarily inconsistent.

You know this (because Gödel), and yet you are still doing it! One can safely infer that you are doing it knowingly and intentionally.

According to your axiom: That makes you a liar and a waste of my (and possibly everybody's) time.

At this point I am going to bet money that you didn't read the paper on transcendental syntax I referred you to - it has an entire chapter on contradictory foundations and proof nets.

I am even going to bet that you didn't grasp the implications of the axiom of unrestricted comprehension.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest