So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 amIt is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.Skepdick wrote:Self-reference must be really confusing for you.
Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?
The sentence is refering to itself! And even more precisely: it's refering to a specific property of itself - its truth-value.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Well, it's only obvious if you're too dumb to think that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself i.e. to the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false". That symbol does exist. The sequence of letters that is "T-h-i-s s-e-n-t-e-n-c-e i-s f-a-l-s-e" does exist. But that's NOT what that sentence is referring to.
But your dumb reductionist ass is looking for that property in the parts. Have you considered a holistic approach?
Where the hell do you see anything "attached" to the sentence? I don't see any attachments. Are you projecting?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am It is referring to a BELIEF that is attached to that sentence. But no belief is attached to that sentence. There is an idea attached to it, sure, but that idea is not that of a belief. And that's what's not obvious to people like you.
Huh? The sentence "I am thirsty" expresses me being thirsty. I feel thirsty, I am thirsty. It doesn't exiress a belief of any sort.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 amThe belief that you feel that you should drink water.What belief is attached to the sentence "I am thirsty"?
And I am most definitely NOT expressing a desire to quench my thirst, and certainly not with water!
But even if I was to express that I want to drink water so as to quench my thirst - I am still not expressing a belief!
My desire is not a belief! It's a fact.
Good! So now you understand how moronic you sound when you claim that excluded middle is about beliefs.
There is no belief in thirst or lack thereof - it's knowledge.
Of course the sequence of letters didn't exist, but the sentence did. It existed in my head before I typed it.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am We're talking about the sequence of letters that is "The color of this sentence is red.". That's what has color. That sequence of letters didn't exist until you typed it on your keyboard and painted it in red using BB code.
Who says I have to visualise a sentence? What if I imagine how it sounds when spoken?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Only those sentences you write down on a piece of paper, type on your keyboard or visualize in your head have color. And when I said "A sentence cannot exist without having some color", I was obviously talking about those.
You sure seem to have some bias with respect to forms and mediums.
There are NO such sentences, moron.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 amOne that doesn't exist, smartass.I have no idea what a "non-existing sentence" is. Neither do you.
Try imagine it! Oh, eh! Anything you conceptualise is immediately brought into existence!
There's nothing to be said about non-existing sentences because there's nothing to be sensed about them.
BULLSHIT!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am There are many things you can't assign truth value to. Truth value is an exclusive property of beliefs.
I don't believe that I am thirsty; I AM thirsty. And it's fucking true.
I don't believe that I am frustrated with your stupidity; I am frustrated with your stupidity. And it's fucking true.
Having demonstrated true non-beliefs I think you can throw your definition in the trash can.
Fucking sophist.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am So it's no wonder there are things that you can't assign truth value to e.g. pencils. But in no way, shape or form does that disprove the law of excluded middle for the simple reason that the law of excluded middle is a law pertaining to beliefs.
I believe that this color is blue.
What makes this belief true; or false?
A common mistake all idiots make is to think are lesser idiots than everybody else.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am A common mistake that idiots such as yourself make is to conflate veracity (= truth value) with certainty.
Fuckin sophist. I am not expressing any uncertainty when I say that I believe that this color is blue.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am For example, if you're using ternary classification such as true / false / uncertain, instead of the usual binary one that is true / false, you're no longer talking about veracity (i.e. how true some belief is) but certainty (i.e. how sure someone is that some belief is true.) "True / false / uncertain" is really a shorthand for "Certain that it's true / certain that it's false / uncertain".
Are you going to address the issue or not.
If the word "blue" corresponds to this color; then the belief is true.
If the word "blue" does NOT correspond to this color; then the belief is false.
What determines the correspondence between the term "blue" and this color?
I am not making such a mistake. Only one of us in this conversation believes in the ability to refer to non-existents; and it's you.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Another mistake that idiots make -- the one you're making here in this thread right as we speak -- is to describe things that do not exist.
I didn't say that. You are saying that I said that.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am As an example, you said that the color of a sentence that has no color property (because it hasn't been visualized in your head, written on a piece of paper or typed on a keyboard) is undecidable.
Which is precisely the point that has been going over your head for days!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 amThe meaning assigned to it by its user.I am asking you to explain what determines that the concept/linguistic expression/English word "red" corresponds to any particular color?
There are NO privileged descriptions.
EVERY belief can correspond to reality if I a user wants it to correspond to reality.
"Women" can correspond to peope with penises if I want it to correspond.
"Truck" can correspond to flying machines. If I want it to correspond.
"Red" can correspond to this color.. If I want it to correspond.
And so truth is nothing more than the proclamation of correspondence, but not the determination of correspondence.
Those who say that aren't all too familiar with speech-acts. The consequences of the words "Alexa, turn on the lights" results in the lights in my house turning on.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 amThey say "Actions speak louder than words". I prefer to say "Consequences speak louder than both actions and words".I am literally insisting on interaction!
How's that for the consequences of my speech-acts?
So nothing should speak louder to you than my speech-act of saying that I insist on interaction.
Synchronous communication converges faster than asynchronous communication.
The laws of logic are subject to choice. The only way your claim can be true is if we all made the exact same choices.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am The laws of logic are inborn and they are the same for everyone.
But therein lies the crux. Choice and excluded middle are intrinsically linked.
Choice implies excluded middle
You are telling me I can't reject excluded middle. I am demonstrating that I can. You reject the rejection of excluded middle despite the evidence.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am You either understand them or you don't. And you either follow them or you don't. You are promoting the freedom of the dumb a.k.a. free-dumb. And I am not actually forcing anyone. That's your made up crap.
You are forcing me to adopt your stupid ideology in order to interact with you.
Of course, I could make a compromise and accept your law, but that would trap both of us in a frame of mind which is not constructive. And what's the point of that?
All that I have learned about you is that you are incapable of learning. You have too many sacred cows.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am The purpose of debates is for people to learn from each other, to resolve their disagreements. It's mutually beneficial.
And in so long as you are unwilling to abandon excluded middle - there is no resolution possible; for I see no point in accepting an axiom which demolishes any chance of constructive dialogue.
No, they aren't. Once you drop the silly fear-mongering connotation they are exactly the same thing.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Manipulation and influence are two different things.
Idiotic fearmongering. I just asked my wife for a cup of coffee and she made it for me. I manipulated her with langugae.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Manipulation is a type of influence that involves deception and it's typically done for the benefit of the manipulator with little to no regard for those who are being manipulated.
There was nothing sinister or deceptive about my linguistic manipulation.
I pushed the button to turn on the microwave - I manipulated matter in order to warm my sandwich. There was nothing sinister about that.
Humans manipulate and exploit the world to our benefit. This is what we DO. There is nothing sinister about that.
Manipulation is a more general term. Every interaction with ANYTHING is a manipulation.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:08 am Influence, on the other hand, is a more general term. It does not necessarily involve deception and it can benefit both parties.
Even a scientific measuring is a manipulation - it disturbs a quantum system!
Well, you don't know much about reasoning then.Reasoning is just a tool! It's an instrument which helps us navigate life and achieve our goals. There's no such thing as context-free "better" or "worse" reasoning. Better for what?
[/quote]
There is no moral high ground you can climb upon you fucking sophist! No vantage point you can self-appoint yourself to from which you can make the determination that you are making
To assert that some reasoning is better than other you need to reason about reasoning.
But the trivial counter-attack is to claim that you don't know much about reasoning about reasoning.
My reasoning about reasoning is better than your reasoning about reasoning! Ad infinitum.
To assert that X is better than Y requires an objective goal.
If "worse" reasoning gets the job done and "better" reasoning doesn't - no amount of posturing, self-agrandizing back-patting, or intelletual masturbation matters.
Trying to position yourself as a "better" than me only tells us one thing: you are fucking insecure about your own prowess.