(0=0)=(1=1)

[Magnus Anderson]

That's the dumdbest analogy you could've come up with.

The expression "This sentence is false." has a referer and a referent which coincide. An assertion is being made.
The expression "Dogs" has no referer.

Neither "This sentence is false" nor dogs have truth value (dogs qua animals, not dogs qua the statement "Dogs".) And they don't have it for the same exact reason: they are not beliefs. The former looks like a belief but it isn't really.

"This sentence is false" does not really contain a reference to a real portion of reality. It does have rules that tell you how to logically deduce the portion of reality it refers to but they lead nowhere. Try to deduce it. Show us the portion of reality it refers to and tell us what's inside it. It's similar to "Unicorns that live on Earth are green". There are rules for how to identify the referred portion of reality ("Unicorns that live on Earth") but when you try to locate that portion of reality, you get nowhere, since that portion of reality does not actually exist.

Never mind that, of course "dogs" is a belief when used as a referer.

Never mind that what I meant by "dogs" is not the statement "Dogs" but animals that we call dogs.

BLUE -------> ████ ( I believe that this color is blue )
RED -------> ████ ( You believe that this color is red )

If "they have no truth value" then how did you assert the truth-value of these sentences?!

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

These statements do have truth value. The referred portion of reality is the color of the letters that constitute them. And these letters do have color. And depending on what you mean by "red", the above statements may be true or false. If you use the word "red" the way it is normally used, then the first statement is true and the other two are false. If you use it in a different way, I can't tell you anything about their truth value because you didn't tell us what you mean by "red". It's a really simple issue. But some people like to over-complicate things.

"This sentence is false", however, does not have a truth value. It looks like it does but it doesn't really.

Disprove the law of excluded middle? So the law of excluded middle is either true; or false?



Now that's a vicious circularity. Stop wasting my time.

Yes. It's a statement. "For every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true".

[Skepdick]

Neither "This sentence is false" nor dogs have truth value (dogs qua animals, not dogs qua the statement "Dogs".) And they don't have it for the same exact reason: they are not beliefs. The former looks like a belief but it isn't really.

Uhuh. Do you believe in belief?

If I believe that I have no beliefs; do I or don't I have beliefs?

"This sentence is false" does not really contain a reference to a real portion of reality.

I have no idea what that means. All portions of reality are real.

The sentence refers to itself; and it is a portion of reality.

You seem to believe that there are such things as referents which are "not real". I can't even imagine what that's like - what would you be refering to then?

It does have rules that tell you how to logically deduce the portion of reality it refers to but they lead nowhere. Try to deduce it.

Duuuh! Reality is not a system that is subject to deductive reasoning. Try to deduce "reality".

i keep telling you that your logic is broken - you keep ignoring me.

Show us the portion of reality it refers to and tell us what's inside it.

I showed you the portion it refers to - itself. I have no idea what you mean by "inside it". There's nothing "inside" language.

There are rules for how to identify the referred portion of reality ("Unicorns that live on Earth") but when you try to locate that portion of reality, you get nowhere, since that portion of reality does not actually exist.

So (according to you) there are portions of reality which don't exist? Fucking genius.

Never mind that what I meant by "dogs" is not the statement "Dogs" but animals that we call dogs.

Yeah, and I showed you a picture of the animals I call "dogs". What the problem is?

These statements do have truth value. The referred portion of realit is the color of the letters that constitute those statements.

That sure sounds like a double standard to me! In the one context you speak of truth-value (not truth), but in the other context you speak of color (not color-value. Why the inconsistency?!?

This sentence has a color-value of red.
This sentence has a truth-value of false.

And their letters do have a color. And depending on what you mean by "red", they may be true or false. If you use the word "red" the way it is normally used, then the first statement is true and the other two are false. If you use it in a different way, I can't tell you anything about their truth value because you didn't tell us what you mean by "red". It's a really simple issue. But some people like to over-complicate things.

Liar. I told you exactly what I mean by "red".

Red is the color-value of this sentence.

"This sentence is false", however, does not have a truth value. It looks like it does but it doesn't really.

PRECISELY! So you agree, that the "law" of excluded middle does NOT hold!

Yes. It's a statement. "For every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true".

And that statement doesn't hold under non-trivial negation.

Why do I have to explain this over and over? Double negation introduction is valid in most logics; but double negation elimination is only valid in classical logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_ne ... troduction

You are trapped in the tautology of excluded middle...

[Magnus Anderson]

I have no idea what that means. All portions of reality are real.

"Unicorns that live on Earth" is an example of a portion of reality that isn't real.

Duuuh! Reality is not a system that is subject to deductive reasoning. Try to deduce "reality".

i keep telling you that your logic is broken - you keep ignoring me.

You are talking gibberish.

I showed you the portion it refers to - itself.

You didn't show us the portion of reality it refers to. You merely hid behind the word "itself". What do you mean by "itself"? Are you talking about the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false"? Or do you mean something else? Do you, perhaps, mean the belief that is attached to that sequence of letters? If so, what portion of reality does that belief refer to? It can't be a belief if it does not point to an actual portion of reality. What portion of reality does it point to? "It points to itself, motherfucker! It points to the one represented by the sentence "This sentence is false"". Okay, but what portion of reality does that belief refer to? And so on and so forth ad infinitum. It's like someone asking "Who is John?" and someone else answering with "John". Okay, but who is John? "It's John".

Truth value merely refers to the difference between what's inside the referred portion of reality and what's said to be inside it. If one or both are lacking, there is no truth value. And if there's no difference between the two, we're talking about truth. If there's some difference, we're talking about falsehood. It's really THAT simple. All you have to do is understand what the words you're using mean . . . and there will no longer be any mystery. But people like you -- skepdicks, dicks who are skeptical about everything, essentially nihilists who want to destroy everything in sight -- don't like it when mysteries are resolved. You like it when nothing is known, nothing is certain, nothing is believed. After all, we're talking about a guy who believes he has no beliefs . . .

So (according to you) there are portions of reality which don't exist? Fucking genius.

Nothing genial about it. It's pretty basic.

Yeah, and I showed you a picture of the animals I call "dogs". What the problem is?

Too complicated for you to understand it.

That sure sounds like a double standard to me! In the one context you speak of truth-value (not truth), but in the other context you speak of color (not color-value. Why the inconsistency?!?

This sentence has a color-value of red.
This sentence has a truth-value of false.

The first symbol ("This sentence has a color-value of red") is talking about its color. That symbol does have color.

The second symbol ("This sentence has a truth-value of false") is talking about a belief attached to it. But not belief is attached to it. It looks like a belief is attached to it but it actually isn't.

Liar. I told you exactly what I mean by "red".

Red is the color-value of this sentence.

You need to learn how to relax.

PRECISELY! So you agree, that the "law" of excluded middle does NOT hold!

Nah. The law of excluded middle only applies to BELIEFS. Only beliefs have truth value. Nothing else does. Skepdicks are not beliefs, hence, skepdicks have no truth value. Does that disprove the law of excluded middle? Of course it doesn't. The thing is that "This sentence is false" is NOT a belief. It LOOKS like a belief but it isn't really. In order for something to be a belief, it must have a reference to an actual portion of reality. "This sentence is false" doesn't (in a way similar to "The unicorns that live on Earth are green".)

[Magnus Anderson]

And that statement doesn't hold under non-trivial negation.

Why do I have to explain this over and over? Double negation introduction is valid in most logics; but double negation elimination is only valid in classical logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_ne ... troduction

You are trapped in the tautology of excluded middle...

There is a difference between men who read and men who think. You obviously belong to the former. You like to read but you don't like to think much. It shows. You are full of references to all sorts of things but when it actually comes to reasoning you are worse than a toddler. All those things you read confuse you to such an extent that even a toddler, merely because it didn't have enough time to pollute its mind with all sorts of crap, can think better than you.

You are the one trying to reject the law of excluded middle and Classical / Binary logic, insisting that multi-valued systems of logic are somehow opposed to it. You are the pseudo-intellectual postmodernist nihilistic moron trying to literally DESTROY human intelligence by teaching that the most basic truths are actually not truths at all but falsehoods.

[Skepdick]

"Unicorns that live on Earth" is an example of a portion of reality that isn't real.

Read that sentence out loud for yourself... "a portion of reality that isn't real".

You are talking gibberish.

It's English. Reality is not the sort of system you come to know by deductive reasoning - you have nothing to start deducing with.

Literally none of the premises you begin reasoning with are obtained by deduction.

You didn't show us the portion of reality it refers to. You merely hid behind the word "itself". What do you mean by "itself"?

Holy fuck - the mental gymnastics!

The sentence "This sentence is false" refers to itself.

Are you telling you don't understand what the word "itself" refers to in the above example ?!?

Are you talking about the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false"? Or do you mean something else?

You are trying too hard to be smart and it's making you stupid.

So (according to you) there are portions of reality which don't exist? Fucking genius.

Nothing genial about it. It's pretty basic.

It's so "basic" it's dumb. So dumb, in fact, you've split reality/existence into existing and non-existing parts.

Just say it out loud a couple of times until you hear your own stupidity. "The non-existing part of existence".

The first symbol ("This sentence has a color-value of red") is talking about its color. That symbol does have color.

What intellectual defficiency is preventing you from understanding that the color-value is a particular color on the color-spectrum?

You do understand that the EM spectrum is a continuum, right?

The second symbol ("This sentence has a truth-value of false") is talking about a belief attached to it. But not belief is attached to it. It looks like a belief is attached to it but it actually isn't.

Fucking sophist.

I believe that I have no beliefs. Do I; or don't I have beliefs?

Nah. The law of excluded middle only applies to BELIEFS. Only beliefs have truth value.

OK. So the belief that I have no beliefs has a truth-value.

What is it?

Nothing else does. Skepdicks are not beliefs, hence, skepdicks have no truth value. Does that disprove the law of excluded middle? Of course it doesn't. The thing is that "This sentence is false" is NOT a belief. It LOOKS like a belief but it isn't really. In order for something to be a belief, it must have a reference to an actual portion of reality. "This sentence is false" doesn't (in a way similar to "The unicorns that live on Earth are green".)

Yada. Yada. Yada. Yada.

Sophist.

[Skepdick]

And that statement doesn't hold under non-trivial negation.

Why do I have to explain this over and over? Double negation introduction is valid in most logics; but double negation elimination is only valid in classical logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_ne ... troduction

You are trapped in the tautology of excluded middle...

There is a difference between men who read and men who think. You obviously belong to the former.

You have youself a case of mistaken identity.

You appear to be completely incompetent at thinking; and incompetent at thinking about thinking.

You like to read but you don't like to think much. It shows. You are full of references to all sorts of things but when it actually comes to reasoning you are worse than a toddler.

You are not competent enough to pass such judgment.

All those things you read confuse you to such an extent that even a toddler, merely because it didn't have enough time to pollute its mind with all sorts of crap, can think better than you.

That's a claim you definitely can't justify. Epistemology 101 - what's tour criterion for "better thinking"?

Bet you can't tell us.

You are the one trying to reject the law of excluded middle and Classical / Binary logic, insisting that multi-valued systems of logic are somehow opposed to it. You are the pseudo-intellectual postmodernist nihilistic moron trying to literally DESTROY human intelligence by teaching that the most basic truths are actually not truths at all but falsehoods.

Idiot. In the last 100 years lInear logic has propulsed humanity forward from quantum physics to computer science; to linguistics; to game theory. It's transforming all of Mathematics in the form of automated proof assistants. Formalising mathematics is enabling AI-driven advances in the field.

What is clear and obvious intellectual, technological and epistemic progress is dismissed by you as "destruction of human intelligence".

Dumg fucking luddite. Planck was right!

[Magnus Anderson]

Read that sentence out loud for yourself... "a portion of reality that isn't real".

The message is clear, isn't it? So what's the issue?

It's English. Reality is not the sort of system you come to know by deductive reasoning - you have nothing to start deducing with.

Literally none of the premises you begin reasoning with are obtained by deduction.

And that's relevant because?

Holy fuck - the mental gymnastics!

The sentence "This sentence is false" refers to itself.

Are you telling you don't understand what the word "itself" refers to in the above example ?!?

Nah, I am saying YOU don't know what it means.

You are trying too hard to be smart and it's making you stupid.

Nah, just asking.

It's so "basic" it's dumb. So dumb, in fact, you've split reality/existence into existing and non-existing parts.

Nah, you're juar taking some words a bit too literally.

What intellectual defficiency is preventing you from understanding that the color-value is a particular color on the color-spectrum?

You do understand that the EM spectrum is a continuum, right?

You and your banal truisms. Yes, we all know that. Unfortunately for you, it's irrelevant.

Fucking sophist.

I believe that I have no beliefs. Do I; or don't I have beliefs?

You do. You have a belief that you do not have beliefs. It's a false belief but it's nonetheless a belief.

OK. So the belief that I have no beliefs has a truth-value.

What is it?

False.

Yada. Yada. Yada. Yada.

Sophist.

You are running out of fuel, it seems.

And by the way, it is YOU who are a sophist. You aren't going to deceive anyone by accusing other people of your own guilt BEFORE they accuse you of it. I know that trick.

[Magnus Anderson]

Bet you can't tell us.

You don't know that. You're merely presuming.

Idiot. In the last 100 years lInear logic has propulsed humanity forward from quantum physics to computer science; to linguistics; to game theory. It's transforming all of Mathematics in the form of automated proof assistants. Formalising mathematics is enabling AI-driven advances in the field.

What is clear and obvious intellectual, technological and epistemic progress is dismissed by you as "destruction of human intelligence".

Dumg fucking luddite. Planck was right!

The purpose of technological advancements that you're speaking of are to enslave you -- but that's a different topic. I am not really against technology (it depends) and I do not necessarily have anything against modern developments in mathematics, physics and other areas of knowledge. I do when they do conflict with basic truths that have been known for eons and that have been proven to death. You know, that which is useful with regard to certain ends is not necessarily true. But often enough, such a conflict does not really exist and it's only people like you who think that it does. What I'm against is the postmodernist belief that every person should be an island that has little to no reason to interact with other people. It's part of the "Divide and conquer" agenda. That's what you're pushing. Arguing against the law of excluded middle is merely a part of it. You're too deep into the postmodernist bullshit to see it.

[Skepdick]

Read that sentence out loud for yourself... "a portion of reality that isn't real".

The message is clear, isn't it? So what's the issue?

It is? I am mocking you precisely because you think some parts of reality are not real.

And that's relevant because?

Because deductive reasoning needs to be bootstrapped before it can be used?

Nah, I am saying YOU don't know what it means.

I don't know how I am using the word "itself' in the context of sentences which refer to themselves?!?

What a fucking clown!

Do you know what "yourself" means in the context of words which refer to yourself?

Nah, you're juar taking some words a bit too literally.

Oh, so you are talking about non-literal reality/existence?!? Where is that?

You and your banal truisms. Yes, we all know that. Unfortunately for you, it's irrelevant.

It's pretty relevant given that it represents all possible color-values. Before I assigned a particular color-value to this sentence,
it could've been any one of infinitely-many color-values..

That's the exact same principle you are using with the "law" of excluded middle. Before you assign a truth-value to a sentence - it could be any one of two truth-values.

The color-value; or truth-value of a sentence are free variables.

You do. You have a belief that you do not have beliefs. It's a false belief but it's nonetheless a belief.

OK. So the belief that I have no beliefs has a truth-value.

What is it?

False.

It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".

[Skepdick]

Bet you can't tell us.

You don't know that. You're merely presuming.

Hence the word "bet" - in a world without absolute certainty guessing and betting is all we can do

The purpose of technological advancements that you're speaking of are to enslave you -- but that's a different topic. I am not really against technology (it depends) and I do not necessarily have anything against modern developments in mathematics, physics and other areas of knowledge. I do when they do conflict with basic truths that have been known for eons and that have been proven to death.

"Proven" how? The notion of "proof" has no meaning outside of Mathematical context.

You prove that the sum of angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees in a Euclidian plane. You can't prove that reality is; or isn't an Euclidian plane.

You are so confused about what we can and can't know it's hilarious.

You know, that which is useful with regard to certain ends is not necessarily true.

You know, you have no criterion for truth, right? Correspondence doesn't work.

After all you still haven't told us what makes "red" correspond to this color.
Why doesn't "blue'" correspond to this color?
Why doesn't "green" correspond to this color?

Once correspondence goes out the window all you are left with is "sufficient descriptions for particular purposes"; and the terms "red", "blue" and "green" are equally capable of corresponding to this color.

So why don't they?

But often enough, such a conflict does not really exist and it's only people like you who think that it does. What I'm against is the postmodernist belief that every person should be an island that has little to no reason to interact with other people.

Then interact! Negotiate language and rules in real time. Dumb computers can do it - why can't you?

Or does your religion compel you to blindly defend your false God? The axioms of your logic.

It's part of the "Divide and conquer" agenda.

That's pretty weird - I thought being able to abandon your biases and engage constructively with people from different cultural backgrounds amounts to unification, not division.

That's what you're pushing. Arguing against the law of excluded middle is merely a part of it. You're too deep into the postmodernist bullshit to see it.

If bullshit equates to postmodernism then anyone who believes in the law of excluded middle is a postmodernist...

Either the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42; or it isn't! Every number is either 0; or it isn't.

Way to say nothing

[Magnus Anderson]

It is? I am mocking you precisely because you think some parts of reality are not real.

You're either too stupid to understand simple sentences (blinded by your uncontrollable urge to find fault in those you don't like and want to attack) or you're paid to do be a dick.

Because deductive reasoning needs to be bootstrapped before it can be used?

And that's relevant because?

I don't know how I am using the word "itself' in the context of sentences which refer to themselves?!?

What a fucking clown!

Do you know what "yourself" means in the context of words which refer to yourself?

You don't know that the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false" is a belief attached to that sentence and that that belief is actually missing. It's similar to the claim "Joe Biden's second head is green". There are rules that can tell you what portion of reality it refers to ("Joe Biden's second head") but such a portion does not actually exist. An idiot such as you would object by saying "Duh! The referred portion of reality is Joe Biden's second head! What a clown!" You're confusing the symbol ("Joe Biden's second head") with what that symbol represents (Joe's second head, which does not exist.) The symbol is there, sure, but what it represents isn't there. And note that "This sentence is true" does not refer to the symbol itself i.e. to the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is true". That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean by "itself" (which you refused to do, cleverly, like a true politician.) It refers to the attached belief. The problem is, no belief is attached to that sentence.

You are either a victim of sophistry (a dumb impressionable child or a manchild who fell for the scam that is postmodernism) or you're pretending to be one in order to promote your agenda (and cleverly accusing the other side of your own guilt.)

Before I assigned a particular color-value to this sentence,
it could've been any one of infinitely-many color-values..

How stupid. Before you assigned a particular color to that sentence, the sentence did not exist. A sentence cannot exist without having some sort of color. And we're talking about the color of an existing sentence, not a non-existing one.

Before you assign a truth-value to a sentence - it could be any one of two truth-values.

Nah, that's more of the same postmodernistic solipsistic bullshit.

It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".

It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.

You know, you have no criterion for truth, right?

Yet another presumption.

Correspondence doesn't work.

Nonsense.

After all you still haven't told us what makes "red" correspond to this color.
Why doesn't "blue'" correspond to this color?
Why doesn't "green" correspond to this color?

You have to show us that your questions are actually relevant. Otherwise, I may or may not answer them.

Since you haven't communicated the meaning that you assigned to the word "red" with sufficient clarity, I am left on my own, having no choice but to guess.

Let's take a look at your sentences one more time.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

I take it that, in the first sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by that word. In the second sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by the word "green". And in the third sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by "blue". As such, all of them are true.

Now you're asking me to explain to you exactly HOW these sentences correspond to the beliefs attached to them. What exactly do you want to know? A belief is said to correspond to reality if what's inside its referred portion of reality is what it says is inside it. In the case of "This sentence is black", the referred portion of reality is the color of each letter in the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is black" and what's said about it is that it's black. Since the color of each letter in that seuqnece is indeed black, the belief represented by that statement corresponds to reality i.e. it is true. What else do you want to know and why?

Then interact!

Postmodernism (which is your way of thinking) is against poeple interacting with each other. Or rather, it's against a type of interaction that will make them independent from those who want to enslave them. They are still free to interact in a way that is approved by those running the show.

That's pretty weird - I thought being able to abandon your biases and engage constructively with people from different cultural backgrounds amounts to unification, not division.

That's part of the deception. Pretend that you're promoting unity when, in reality, you're promoting division. Some say they are pro-globalism, some say they are pro-nationalism. Both refer to positive things. "Globalism" means "unity on the global level". "Nationalism" means "unity on a national level". In reality, what they are promoting is slavery -- either on the global level (the worst kind of slavery there can be, not counting total / universal slavery i.e. the enslavement of the entire universe not merely Earth) or on a national level (the lesser evil.) They are not going to tell you what they want, because you won't like it, so they have to sugarcoat everything.

If they want to control you, they will promote the idea of freedom as much as they can in order to make sure that noone, except for them, can have a significant influence over your life. Your parents, your neighbours, your friends and strangers (whether real life or virtual strangers) are expected to let you live your life whatever way you want because it makes it easy for them to secretly manipulate you into doing whatever they want you to do (boring old-fashioned parents are no longer obstructing the achievement of their goals.)

Promoting the idea that there is no truth is part of it. If there is no truth, debates are pointless. You yourself stated that debates are a waste of time. If there are no debates, people do not learn from each other. But more importantly, if there are no debates, interpersonal influence is severely limited. As such, it makes it easier for them to control you via secret manipulation. They can program you to be whatever they want you to be. And the funniest thing of all is that you'll live your entire life believing that you've been making your own decisions all this time. Why? Because you saw noone in your immediate environment attempting to steer you in this or that direction. The manipulator, thanks to the very long leash that he's using, kept himself outside of your view. You are completely unaware of his existence.

Another idea that is being promoted is excessive trust in what other people say about themselves. The most obvious case involves transgender people. If a man says he's a woman, we should simply accept that and not object to it. You did something similar in this thread too. If someone says they work with a different set of rules for what's good and what's bad reasoning, we should simply accept it as true. It's the same exact stupidity. You tried pushing the idea that each person has his own set of rules for what's good reasoning and what's not but, of course, you didn't provide much of an argument in that direction.

[Skepdick]

You're either too stupid to understand simple sentences (blinded by your uncontrollable urge to find fault in those you don't like and want to attack) or you're paid to do be a dick.

False dichotomy. The sentence is as incoherent as "square circles".

And now you are projecting your own stupidity onto me, because you are too intellectualy dishonest to own up to your own incoherence.

And that's relevant because?

Because you are using deductive reasoning without explaining how you've bootstrapped it?

How have you obtained all the premises you deduce with?

You don't know that the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false" is a belief attached to that sentence and that that belief is actually missing.

Maybe you don't know. Self-reference must be really confusing for you.

Are you also this confused when you make self-referential statements about your own state of mind?

It's similar to the claim "Joe Biden's second head is green". There are rules that can tell you what portion of reality it refers to ("Joe Biden's second head") but such a portion does not actually exist.

Which has what to do with anything? It's pretty damn obvious that a sentence which refers to itself exists.

And it's pretty damn obvious that objects which which refer to themselves exist.

An idiot such as you would object by saying "Duh! The referred portion of reality is Joe Biden's second head! What a clown!" You're confusing the symbol ("Joe Biden's second head") with what that symbol represents (Joe's second head, which does not exist.)

Strawman.

The symbol is there, sure, but what it represents isn't there.

Idiot. The word "language" is a linguistic representation of language! What's confusing you?

And note that "This sentence is true" does not refer to the symbol itself i.e. to the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is true". That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean by "itself" (which you refused to do, cleverly, like a true politician.)

And now you are lying like a politician. The sentence refers to itself!

Because there exist objects in reality which can (and do!) refer to themselves! Humans, sentences.

Do you understand what I mean when I use the word "myself"; or are equally stupefied about common English words?

It refers to the attached belief. The problem is, no belief is attached to that sentence.

What belief is attached to the sentence "I am thirsty"?
What belief is attached to the sentence "I"?

Why is self-reference so difficult for you? Are you perhaps too stupid to comprehend recursion?

Before I assigned a particular color-value to this sentence,
it could've been any one of infinitely-many color-values..

How stupid. Before you assigned a particular color to that sentence, the sentence did not exist.

The fuck? Of course it existed! I just hadn't uttered it in a linguistic form yet.

A sentence cannot exist without having some sort of color.

What the fuck? What color do all the unexpressed sentences in your head have?

And we're talking about the color of an existing sentence, not a non-existing one.

I have no idea what a "non-existing sentence" is. Neither do you.

Nah, that's more of the same postmodernistic solipsistic bullshit.

I have no idea why you are disagreeing. You are still unable to assign a truth-value to "This sentence is false".

It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.

That is a peculiar anthropomorphism. Sentences don't have any beliefs "attached" to them. Not unless you assume senteneces have minds.

Yet another presumption.

An educated guess.

Nonsense.

Then why haven't you justified it yet? Is it because you can't; or because you don't know how?

You have to show us that your questions are actually relevant. Otherwise, I may or may not answer them.

I am asking you to demonstrate what or where the "correspondence" is between an English expression and a color.

What determines that this color corresponds to this word -----> "red" ?

Where is this relationship located? Of course, I fully expect you to tell me that such relationships are located in people's minds, but it has become pertinently obvious that you don't consider the contents of minds as "real"; or "existing". So it's pretty fair to say that (from your point of view) correspondences don't exist!

Since you haven't communicated the meaning that you assigned to the word "red" with sufficient clarity, I am left on my own, having no choice but to guess.

What the fuck!?!

The word "red" means this color.


Let's take a look at your sentences one more time.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

I take it that, in the first sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by that word. In the second sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by the word "green". And in the third sentence, the word "red" refers to what is normally meant by "blue". As such, all of them are true.

DUmb sophist.

In the first sentence "red" corredonds to this color.
In the second sentence "red" corredponds to this color
In the third sentence "red" corredponds to this color

You said that truth is corredpondence, so are you now agreeing that all three of them correspond to reality?
Because yesterday you disagreed.

Now you're asking me to explain to you exactly HOW these sentences correspond to the beliefs attached to them.

I am not asking you to do any such thing. I am asking you to explain what determines that the concept/linguistic expression/English word "red" corresponds to any particular color?

What exactly do you want to know? A belief is said to correspond to reality if what's inside its referred portion of reality is what it says is inside it.

Dumb sophist. ALL of the following sentences express states of minds. They express my attitude towards various colors!

I believe that this color is red.
I believe that this color is red.
I believe that this color is red.

Which belief is true?
Which belief corredponds?
What determines this correspondence?

In the case of "This sentence is black", the referred portion of reality is the color of each letter in the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is black" and what's said about it is that it's black. Since the color of each letter in that seuqnece is indeed black, the belief represented by that statement corresponds to reality i.e. it is true. What else do you want to know and why?

This sentence is black.

What determines whether that does; or doesn't correspond ?

Postmodernism (which is your way of thinking) is against poeple interacting with each other.

Then I can't possibly be a postmodernist, can I? I am literally insisting on interaction!

Do you actually care about falsifying your own beliefs; or is science beneath you?

Or rather, it's against a type of interaction that will make them independent from those who want to enslave them. They are still free to interact in a way that is approved by those running the show.

Yeah, lets talk about enslavement and undermining people's independnece.

What do you make of forcing people to believe in made-up authorities? Like Gods; or the "laws" of logic?
What do you make of making people obedient to made up rules?

That's part of the deception. Pretend that you're promoting unity when, in reality, you're promoting division.
Some say they are pro-globalism, some say they are pro-nationalism. Both refer to positive things. "Globalism" means "unity on the global level". "Nationalism" means "unity on a national level". In reality, what they are promoting is slavery -- either on the global level (the worst kind of slavery there can be, not counting total / universal slavery i.e. the enslavement of the entire universe not merely Earth) or on a national level (the lesser evil.) They are not going to tell you what they want, because you won't like it, so they have to sugarcoat everything.

You mean like you are sugarcoating the made up laws of logic as sacred cows?

If they want to control you, they will promote the idea of freedom as much as they can in order to make sure that noone, except for them, can have a significant influence over your life.

You mean like how you are trying to influence my life by controlling my reasoning by imposing the "law" of excluded middle upon me?

Your parents, your neighbours, your friends and strangers (whether real life or virtual strangers) are expected to let you live your life whatever way you want because it makes it easy for them to secretly manipulate you into doing whatever they want you to do (boring old-fashioned parents are no longer obstructing the achievement of their goals.)

You mean like you are trying to manipulate me in to accepting made up laws?

Promoting the idea that there is no truth is part of it. If there is no truth, debates are pointless.

Debates are pointless. Which is precisely why I don't engage in them. Without common purpose there is no common ground.

You yourself stated that debates are a waste of time. If there are no debates, people do not learn from each other. But more importantly, if there are no debates, interpersonal influence is severely limited.

You just said you don't want other people to manipulate you, but now you want to influence others.

Are you sure you don't have some secret fettish where you do, in fact, want control over others with tools like persuasion and reason?

As such, it makes it easier for them to control you via secret manipulation.

Exactly like you control people who bow to your "rules".

Would you like a lesson on control theory; and linguistic control flow?

They can program you to be whatever they want you to be.

It's weird how you keep saying "they" when "they" is you.

And the funniest thing of all is that you'll live your entire life believing that you've been making your own decisions all this time. Why? Because you saw noone in your immediate environment attempting to steer you in this or that direction. The manipulator, thanks to the very long leash that he's using, kept himself outside of your view. You are completely unaware of his existence.

It's pretty ironic that you've laid your cards bare. Given your utter lack of awareness of how your choice of logic controls your thinking.

Another idea that is being promoted is excessive trust in what other people say about themselves. The most obvious case involves transgender people. If a man says he's a woman, we should simply accept that and not object to it.

Yeah, well. Self-determination is a big deal with humans. You don't seem to value that idea as much as most.

Is it because you want to determine the lives of other people for them?

You did something similar in this thread too. If someone says they work with a different set of rules for what's good and what's bad reasoning, we should simply accept it as true.

You are so obsessed with prosletysm you are even peddling your own idea of "truth" and trying to impose it on other people.

Ger a mirror, dude! You are everythig you hate!

It's the same exact stupidity. You tried pushing the idea that each person has his own set of rules for what's good reasoning and what's not but, of course, you didn't provide much of an argument in that direction.

Precisely. And I won't argue for it.

I shall not let you impose on me the game/rules of "arguing". It comes with all of its own baggage, pre-conceptions and connotations. It's a stupid ritual!

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?

[Magnus Anderson]

And now you are lying like a politician. The sentence refers to itself!

Because there exist objects in reality which can (and do!) refer to themselves! Humans, sentences.

Do you understand what I mean when I use the word "myself"; or are equally stupefied about common English words?

You're missing the point. Again, what do you mean by "itself"? Are you going to avoid answering that question like you did the last time? Is it referring to the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false" or is it referring to something else? If it's referring to a sequence of letters, then it's not a belief. A belief is NOT a sequence of letters. Hence, it's not something that has truth value, and thus, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. If it's referring to something else, what is this something else it is referring to? Again, if it's something that is not a belief, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. So it must be a belief, right? If so, which one? Is it the one attached to the aforementioned sequence of letters? If it is, can you tell me what portion of reality that belief refers to? If there's no portion of reality it refers to then it's not really a belief. If you think there's a portion of reality it refers to, please tell us what that portion of reality is. And make sure to give us a reference that does not lead to another reference that leads to another reference that leads to another reference and so on without an end. In programming terms, give us a pointer that directly or indirectly points to something that is not a pointer; don't give us a pointer that points to another pointer that points to another pointer that points to another point and so on ad infinitum.

You are playing word games. You are hiding behind the word "itself". You don't want to tell us what "itself" refers to at the end of the reference chain. You are hiding behind silly little excuses such as "El oh el! You don't know what "itself" means! El oh el! What a moran!" I know what it means, I know what self-reference is, I just want you to tell us something about that thing it ultimately refers to. Please, tell us something about that thing. Prove to us that we're not dealing with a circular reference. Stop playing political games and act responsibly for once. Demonstrate to us that you're not an agent and that you're not an incredibly stupid dick.

[Magnus Anderson]

Self-reference must be really confusing for you.

It is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.

Which has what to do with anything? It's pretty damn obvious that a sentence which refers to itself exists.

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. 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.

What belief is attached to the sentence "I am thirsty"?

The belief that you feel that you should drink water.

What belief is attached to the sentence "I"?

None.

The fuck? Of course it existed! I just hadn't uttered it in a linguistic form yet.

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.

What the fuck? What color do all the unexpressed sentences in your head have?

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.

I have no idea what a "non-existing sentence" is. Neither do you.

One that doesn't exist, smartass.

You are still unable to assign a truth-value to "This sentence is false".

There are many things you can't assign truth value to. Truth value is an exclusive property of beliefs. Only beliefs have truth value. By definition. 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.

A common mistake that idiots such as yourself make is to conflate veracity (= truth value) with certainty. 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".

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. 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. You make that mistake as a consequence of your failure to realize that the color property is missing. That's why you can't give it a specific color. It's not there. So you have no choice but to say the color is undecidable. You do the same when you say that the truth value of "This sentence is false" is undecidable. You fail to realize that the sentence has no belief attached to it, and as such, no property called "veracity" and "truth value". It's as stupid as saying "The average lifespan of unicorns living on planet Earth is undecidable". I mean, the statement itself isn't really stupid, and it's not really false (it's true you can't determine the average lifespan of unicorns on Earth simply because no unicorns exist), but deducing from it that the law of excluded middle is a false law is stupid as fuck.

You said that truth is corredpondence, so are you now agreeing that all three of them correspond to reality?
Because yesterday you disagreed.

Yes.

I am asking you to explain what determines that the concept/linguistic expression/English word "red" corresponds to any particular color?

The meaning assigned to it by its user.

I am literally insisting on interaction!

They say "Actions speak louder than words". I prefer to say "Consequences speak louder than both actions and words".

What do you make of forcing people to believe in made-up authorities? Like Gods; or the "laws" of logic?
What do you make of making people obedient to made up rules?

The laws of logic are inborn and they are the same for everyone. 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.

Debates are pointless. Which is precisely why I don't engage in them. Without common purpose there is no common ground.

The purpose of debates is for people to learn from each other, to resolve their disagreements. It's mutually beneficial.

You just said you don't want other people to manipulate you, but now you want to influence others.

Manipulation and influence are two different things.

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.

Influence, on the other hand, is a more general term. It does not necessarily involve deception and it can benefit both parties.

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?

Well, you don't know much about reasoning then.

And I've ignored the rest of your post because it's too stupid to bother responding to.

[Skepdick]

I am not avoiding the question - you are avoiding teling me what is confusing you about my use of "itself". Is it referring to the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false" or is it referring to something else? If it's referring to a sequence of letters, then it's not a belief. A belief is NOT a sequence of letters. Hence, it's not something that has truth value, and thus, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

The confusion and sophistry in your head runs very deep.

Is the sentence "I am a sentence which refers to itself." confusing you?
Do you understand what "itself" means in that sentence?

Do you not consider "I am a sentence which refers to itself." to be a true sentence?!?

Again, if it's something that is not a belief, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. So it must be a belief, right? If so, which one? Is it the one attached to the aforementioned sequence of letters? If it is, can you tell me what portion of reality that belief refers to?

Are you really so stupid that you can't even understand that the portion of reality the sentence "This sentence refers to itself." refers to is the sentence itself ?!?!

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

If there's no portion of reality it refers to then it's not really a belief.

EVERY self-referential sentence refers to itself!

The first letter of this sentence is "t"!
The second word in this sentence is "second"!
This sentence ends with a full stop.

If you think there's a portion of reality it refers to, please tell us what that portion of reality is.

For every self-referential sentence - the portion of reality they refer to is themselves!

This idea really seems to be above your intelect.

And make sure to give us a reference that does not lead to another reference that leads to another reference that leads to another reference and so on without an end.

Why are you expanding a single self-reference ad infinitum ?!?!

In programming terms, give us a pointer that directly or indirectly points to something that is not a pointer; don't give us a pointer that points to another pointer that points to another pointer that points to another point and so on ad infinitum.

In programming terms I haven't given you a pointer to a pointer. I have given you a pointer to an object.

You are playing word games. You are hiding behind the word "itself". You don't want to tell us what "itself" refers to at the end of the reference chain.

Stop bullshitting you fucking bullshitter. For the 8th or 9th time: The word "itself" in the sentence "This sentence refers to itsself." refers to the sentence itself.

I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

You are hiding behind silly little excuses such as "El oh el! You don't know what "itself" means! El oh el! What a moran!" I know what it means, I know what self-reference is, I just want you to tell us something about that thing it ultimately refers to.

Ultimately, it refers to itself! In the exact same sense I refer to myself when I say "I am thirsty"

It's really not an excuse when I say that you are stupid. It's just a statement of fact.

Please, tell us something about that thing. Prove to us that we're not dealing with a circular reference. Stop playing political games and act responsibly for once. Demonstrate to us that you're not an agent and that you're not an incredibly stupid dick.

What the hell?

This sentence is before your eyes.

Why do you want me to tell you anything about it when you can trivially examine it yourself.