(0=0)=(1=1)

[Skepdick]

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.

So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."

Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?

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.

The sentence is refering to itself! And even more precisely: it's refering to a specific property of itself - its truth-value.

But your dumb reductionist ass is looking for that property in the parts. Have you considered a holistic approach?

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.

Where the hell do you see anything "attached" to the sentence? I don't see any attachments. Are you projecting?

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

The belief that you feel that you should drink water.

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.

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.

What belief is attached to the sentence "I"?

None.

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.

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.

Of course the sequence of letters didn't exist, but the sentence did. It existed in my head before I typed it.

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.

Who says I have to visualise a sentence? What if I imagine how it sounds when spoken?

You sure seem to have some bias with respect to forms and mediums.

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

One that doesn't exist, smartass.

There are NO such sentences, moron.

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.

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

BULLSHIT!

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.

Only beliefs have truth value. By definition.

Having demonstrated true non-beliefs I think you can throw your definition in the trash can.

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.

Fucking sophist.

I believe that this color is blue.

What makes this belief true; or false?

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

A common mistake all idiots make is to think are lesser idiots than everybody else.

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".

Fuckin sophist. I am not expressing any uncertainty when I say that I believe that this color is blue.

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?

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 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.

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.

I didn't say that. You are saying that I said that.

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.

Which is precisely the point that has been going over your head for days!

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.

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".

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.

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 inborn and they are the same for everyone.

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.

But therein lies the crux. Choice and excluded middle are intrinsically linked.

Choice implies excluded middle

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 telling me I can't reject excluded middle. I am demonstrating that I can. You reject the rejection of excluded middle despite the evidence.

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?

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

All that I have learned about you is that you are incapable of learning. You have too many sacred cows.

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.

Manipulation and influence are two different things.

No, they aren't. Once you drop the silly fear-mongering connotation they are exactly the same thing.

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.

Idiotic fearmongering. I just asked my wife for a cup of coffee and she made it for me. I manipulated her with langugae.

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.

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

Manipulation is a more general term. Every interaction with ANYTHING is a manipulation.

Even a scientific measuring is a manipulation - it disturbs a quantum system!

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.
[/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.

[Magnus Anderson]

So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."

There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.

Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?

"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)

The sentence is refering to itself!

Okay, Mr. Broken Record, but what does that mean? what does "itself" refer to?

And even more precisely: it's refering to a specific property of itself - its truth-value.

Yes, and since only beliefs have truth value, "itself" refers to the belief attached to "This sentence is false". But what portion of reality does that belief refer to?

But your dumb reductionist ass is looking for that property in the parts. Have you considered a holistic approach?

Irrelevant crap.

Where the hell do you see anything "attached" to the sentence? I don't see any attachments. Are you projecting?

If nothing is attached to the sentence, it's a meaningless sentence. And a meaningless sentence has no truth value.

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.

It expresses the belief that you are thirsty, that you feel thirsty, that you feel the need to drink water, that you feel that you should dirnk water, that you feel that the best decision for you to do at that point in time is to drink water. The referred portion of reality: your feelings. The idea about what's inside that portion of reality: feelings of thirst.

And I am most definitely NOT expressing a desire to quench my thirst, and certainly not with water!

It doesn't matter.

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!

You are.

My desire is not a belief! It's a fact.

You are expressing a belief that you have some desire.

What you're sayting in the above is as stupid as someone saying "I am a human being" is not a belief because human beings are not beliefs.

Good! So now you understand how moronic you sound when you claim that excluded middle is about beliefs.

The law of excluded middle is entirely about beliefs. You're the one misunderstanding it so as to attack it.

There is no belief in thirst or lack thereof - it's knowledge.

Knowledge is a belief.

Of course the sequence of letters didn't exist, but the sentence did. It existed in my head before I typed it.

And who cares about sentences that have no color property?

Who says I have to visualise a sentence? What if I imagine how it sounds when spoken?

Noone gives a shit about sentences that have no color property.

You sure seem to have some bias with respect to forms and mediums.

You really are a retard. You REALLY should stay the fuck out of philosophy (and sciences in general.)

There are NO such sentences, moron.

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.

You're the one describing non-existing things, fuckface.

I don't believe that I am thirsty; I AM thirsty. And it's fucking true.

You do believe it. You're just too dumb to see it.

I don't believe that I am frustrated with your stupidity; I am frustrated with your stupidity. And it's fucking true.

You do believe it. Obviously, you're too dumb to understand what the word "belief" means.

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?

Its definition. Your point being? In the first case, you gave it the meaning that we normally assign to the word "red". In the second case, you gave it some other meaning. What's your point?

Which is precisely the point that has been going over your head for days!

There are NO privileged descriptions.

EVERY belief can correspond to reality if I a user wants it to correspond to reality.

Nonsense. When you take a sentence and change what meaning you assign to its words, you change what kind of idea is attached to that sentence. If you take the expression that is "2 + 2 = 5" and you change the meaning of "5" to what is normally meant by "4", you change what belief is attacehd to that expression. You end up replacing a false belief with a true one. It is NOT the case that the belief remains the same while its truth value changes. That's merely your postmodernistic idiocy and inability to distinguish between symbols (e.g. the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false") and ideas that are attached to them (e.g. the belief attached to "This sentence is false".)

"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.

"Women", "truck" and "red" are not beliefs, moron. A belief requires a reference to a portion of reality. The word "red" has no such thing. It's a concept that you can use to construct a belief, that's for sure, but it is NOT a belief on its own. In order to turn it into a belief, you have to combine with other concepts e.g. you have to say something like "This thing right here is red". THAT is a belief. You are saying that some portion of reality ("This thing right here") can be represented by the symbol "red". And although the meaning that you assign to the word "red" is entirely arbitrary, i.e. it can be anything you want, what's inside the referred portion of reality, i.e. the constitution of "this thing right here", is not an arbitrary thing. As such, whether or not what you mean by "red" corresponds to what's inside the portion of reality that is "this thing right here", is NOT an arbitrary thing. Learn the motherfucking difference between beliefs and concepts.

Those who say that aren't all too familiar with speech-acts.

Nah. I am sure you're too stupid to understand what is it that they are saying.

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.

Nah.

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.

The only thing that you're demonstrating is that you're seriously lacking in specific kinds of intelligence.

You are forcing me to adopt your stupid ideology in order to interact with you.

Nonsense.

All that I have learned about you is that you are incapable of learning. You have too many sacred cows.

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.

You are not interested in a constructive dialogue. This thread demonstrates it.

No, they aren't. Once you drop the silly fear-mongering connotation they are exactly the same thing.

More imbecility.

Idiotic fearmongering. I just asked my wife for a cup of coffee and she made it for me. I manipulated her with langugae.

That's not what manipulation is.

Humans manipulate and exploit the world to our benefit. This is what we DO. There is nothing sinister about that.

Go back to school and learn about all the ways the word "manipulation" is used. Then come back to this thread after you are done and reread the post where I first mentioned manipulation.

To assert that some reasoning is better than other you need to reason about reasoning.

Nah, you just have to recognize the inborn rules for what's good and what's bad reasoning. What's good and what's bad deductive reasoning is something that is built-in. You don't choose it (you can go against it, that's for sure, but it's not a choice.) The same goes for what's good and what's bad probabilistic reasoning. These things are not choices / decisions. They are merely built-in, hardcoded, rules that you either obey or disobey all depending on whether or not your brain is functioning properly.

[Skepdick]

There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.

*sigh* sophist. Attach a belief then.

I believe that this sentence is red.
I believe that this sentence is false.

"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)

The issue is not whether it has a truth-vlaue. The issue is whether it has a truth-property.

Okay, Mr. Broken Record, but what does that mean? what does "itself" refer to?

Okay. Mr. Broken Record. What are you actually asking?

What is confusing you about the use of the word "itself" in the sentence "This sentence refers to itself.". Are you unable to see the very referent before your eyes?

Put your confusion in words. Help me help you.

Yes, and since only beliefs have truth value

That's not true.

I am thirsty is true. It's not a belief.

Try again.

But what portion of reality does that belief refer to?

What belief? It's a self-assertion.

It's an assertion about the asserter. And the asserter is asserting that the asserter is thirsty.

Irrelevant crap.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

If nothing is attached to the sentence, it's a meaningless sentence. And a meaningless sentence has no truth value.

Nonsense.

The color of this sentence is blue.

Nothing is attached to this sentence but it's true.

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.

It expresses the belief that you are thirsty,

No it doesn't. I don't believe that I am thirsty. I AM thirsty. It's a statement of fact, not belief.

that you feel thirsty, that you feel the need to drink water, that you feel that you should dirnk water, that you feel that the best decision for you to do at that point in time is to drink water. The referred portion of reality: your feelings. The idea about what's inside that portion of reality: feelings of thirst.

How about you get out of the habbit of putting words in my mouth?

"I am thirsty" is not the same thing as "I would like to dirnk water."

The experience of thirst is a different experience to the experience of desire for water.

And I am most definitely NOT expressing a desire to quench my thirst, and certainly not with water!

It doesn't matter.

It's not on you to decide what matters to me. I am expressing thirst, not you.

And I am most definitely not expressing a belief.

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!

You are.

No, I am not. If I was expressing a belief I would've said "I believe I am thirsty". I didn't say that.

Again, do you mind fucking off when I decide how to express myself about myself? Or do you insist forcing your vocabulary down my throat?

You fucking linguistic tyrant.

My desire is not a belief! It's a fact.

You are expressing a belief that you have some desire.

No, I am not. The mental gymnastics are not necessary.

I have a desire. I don't believe that I have a desire.

The word "belief" serves no purpose.

What you're sayting in the above is as stupid as someone saying "I am a human being" is not a belief because human beings are not beliefs.

What you are saying is that you are too stupid to understand the point; so you are attacking a strawman instead.

The law of excluded middle is entirely about beliefs. You're the one misunderstanding it so as to attack it.

Good. If it's entirely about beliefs and we aren't talking about beliefs then we can ignore the "law".

Surely?

There is no belief in thirst or lack thereof - it's knowledge.

Knowledge is a belief.

No it isn't. I don't believe that I am thirsty. I know that I am thirsty.

Of course the sequence of letters didn't exist, but the sentence did. It existed in my head before I typed it.

And who cares about sentences that have no color property?

Whoever cares about such sentences.

Noone gives a shit about sentences that have no color property.

You have this weird habbit of speaking on behalf of 8 billion other people.

You must know them all very well to make the claims you are making.

You sure seem to have some bias with respect to forms and mediums.

You really are a retard. You REALLY should stay the fuck out of philosophy (and sciences in general.)

Why? Computer science pays well.

You're the one describing non-existing things, fuckface.

No I am not. Everything I am describing exists.

I don't believe that I am thirsty; I AM thirsty. And it's fucking true.

You do believe it. You're just too dumb to see it.

Ah well, there's that mind-reading act again. Pretending you have better access to the contents of my mind than I do.

Fucking idiot. You are so dumb you can't even see that you are attempting to narrate my own experiences for me.

What was that moral high horse you tried to climb upon re: imprisoning and robbing people of their freedom of thought?

I don't believe that I am frustrated with your stupidity; I am frustrated with your stupidity. And it's fucking true.

You do believe it. Obviously, you're too dumb to understand what the word "belief" means.

It doesn't mean anything! I haven't assigned it any meaning. OBVIOUSLY.

That is why I am NOT using it!

It is BECAUSE I have not assigned any meaning to "belief" is why I am saying "I am thirsty"; and not "I believe I am thirsty".

Dumb fucking sophist. All you can do now is wrestle for narrative and vocabulary control over my own damn thoughts.

Go fuck yourself.

Its definition. Your point being? In the first case, you gave it the meaning that we normally assign to the word "red". In the second case, you gave it some other meaning. What's your point?

The point is obvious. I reject all of your definitions.

Which is precisely the point that has been going over your head for days!

There are NO privileged descriptions.

EVERY belief can correspond to reality if I a user wants it to correspond to reality.

Nonsense. When you take a sentence and change what meaning you assign to its words, you change what kind of idea is attached to that sentence.

So what? I get to assign the meaning to my own words. I can attach as many meanings to a sentence as I want.

Hence - polymorphism!

If you take the expression that is "2 + 2 = 5" and you change the meaning of "5" to what is normally meant by "4", you change what belief is attacehd to that expression. You end up replacing a false belief with a true one.

So what? True and false are isomorphic according to you? I am always one negation away from being correct.

That's literally what excluded middle entails (according to you anyway).

Or are you suddenly a non-believer?

It is NOT the case that the belief remains the same while its truth value changes. That's merely your postmodernistic idiocy and inability to distinguish between symbols (e.g. the sequence of letters that is "This sentence is false") and ideas that are attached to them (e.g. the belief attached to "This sentence is false".)

What does any of this have to do with symbols, you dumb logocentrist?

You are the moron defending logic and ints laws. I am the one insisting on reasoning free from the chains of your made up laws.

"Women", "truck" and "red" are not beliefs, moron.

You don't get to decide that, moron. I believe that you are woman. Why? Because I've decided that the word "woman" corresponds to you.

You said that's how it works. Now you are recanting.

A belief requires a reference to a portion of reality.

I am refering to you, woman.

The word "red" has no such thing. It's a concept that you can use to construct a belief, that's for sure, but it is NOT a belief on its own.

Idiot. Is it your belief that in the English language the word "red" corresponds to this color?
Is it your belief that the word "blue" is an incorrect term for this color?

On what grounds to you assert such correspondence; or incorrectness?

In order to turn it into a belief, you have to combine with other concepts e.g. you have to say something like "This thing right here is red". THAT is a belief. You are saying that some portion of reality ("This thing right here") can be represented by the symbol "red". And although the meaning that you assign to the word "red" is entirely arbitrary, i.e. it can be anything you want, what's inside the referred portion of reality, i.e. the constitution of "this thing right here", is not an arbitrary thing. As such, whether or not what you mean by "red" corresponds to what's inside the portion of reality that is "this thing right here", is NOT an arbitrary thing. Learn the motherfucking difference between beliefs and concepts.

What difference, idiot? Before the concept of "blue" was invented people weren't so good at seeing blue colors.

The more concepts/words you have for colors - the more colors you can differentiate.

Is this new knowledge for you?

Nah. I am sure you're too stupid to understand what is it that they are saying.

Oh, I doubt that. I am pretty competent at comprehension. I mean - I can make a dumb computer understand English.

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.

Nah.

Yeah well, it's difficult to have a dialogue with people still stuck in Plato's cave.

You are still thinking with your training wheels on.

The only thing that you're demonstrating is that you're seriously lacking in specific kinds of intelligence.

You can't even define intelligence, so you keep falling into circularities.

But if you are the kind of person who "trusts the scientism" - trust me. My IQ is above 170.

You are forcing me to adopt your stupid ideology in order to interact with you.

Nonsense.

I am calling nonsense to your "nonsense".

You are not interested in a constructive dialogue. This thread demonstrates it.

Idiot. The fundamental premise of ALL constructive logics is the abandonment of excluded middle.

The rejection of excluded middle is preciseluy what makes me interested in constructive dialogue.
Your lack of understanding is astounding what it means to be constructive is absolutely astounding!

It's literally what constructive logic is all about!

Idiotic fearmongering. I just asked my wife for a cup of coffee and she made it for me. I manipulated her with langugae.

That's not what manipulation is.

Yes it is.

manipulate verb handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skilful manner.

Did I control something in a skillful manner? Yes! What did I control? My wife? How did I control her? I used language to request a cup of coffee.
What tool/mechanism/information did I control? My wife and the informatiojn that is in her head. I altered the information in her head in such a way so that she desired to make me a cup of coffee. How did I do that? I asked her for a cup of coffee!

I receved a cup of coffee. Control successful!

MANIPULATION.

I used language to manipulate reality (my wife!) and get a cup of coffee!

Go back to school and learn about all the ways the word "manipulation" is used.

I am using the word PRECISELY how everybody else uses it when they don't attach some eery connotation to it!

I am manipulating you right now in non-sinister ways, but if you are a paranoid schitzophrenic - raise the alarm!

To assert that some reasoning is better than other you need to reason about reasoning.

Nah, you just have to recognize the inborn rules for what's good and what's bad reasoning.

No course of action can be determined by a rule because any course of action can be made to accord with that rule.

What's good and what's bad deductive reasoning is something that is built-in.

No, it isn't. Blind rule-following is what computers do, not humans.

You don't choose it (you can go against it, that's for sure, but it's not a choice.) The same goes for what's good and what's bad probabilistic reasoning. These things are not choices / decisions. They are merely built-in, hardcoded, rules that you either obey or disobey all depending on whether or not your brain is functioning properly.

Idiot. If our brains functioned properly we wouldn't need any rules. We wouldn't need to invent new forms of logic, mathematics and formal languages.

Mathematics is a human invention (TOOLS! INSTRUMENTS!) to mitigate some of our innate biases.

We make up those tools to tackle particular problems in particular domains, but as we explore/discover new domains we keep changing the rules of reasoning accordingly and in such a way that they actually work! We are yet to find some set of "universal rules" that work across all domains! Because no man-made rule can capture the innate intricacies of a complex nature.

Rules are just tools! You still need to know the limits and applicability of your tools.

To a man with a hammer - everything looks like a nail.
To a man with logic - everything looks like deduction.

[Magnus Anderson]

[D]o you insist forcing your vocabulary down my throat?

That's what you're doing but without seeing it. You are blinded by your desire to disagree, to prove other people wrong, to be better than them, to be special, unique and different. As a consequence, you spend ridiculously low amount of time considering the possibility that other people aren't as wrong as you hope they are. You are uncooperative and anti-social (all the while pretending you're the polar opposite of it.) And this discussion is a proof of it. Anyone with a bit of a brain can see it.

I made a claim that only beliefs have truth value. As you usually do, you tried to argue against it without properly understanding it. You just want to disagree, that's all there is to it.

A belief is an idea that some portion of reality is such and such. It has two components: a reference to a portion of reality and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality. If an idea is lacking one or both of these components, it's not a belief.

Veracity, or truth value, is the extent to which a belief corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to. It's the degree of similarity between what's inside the referred portion of reality and what the attached idea says is inside that portion of reality.

"I believe I am thirsty" is a belief that you have a belief that you're thirsty. "I am thirsty" is a belief that you're thirsty. That's all the difference between the two.

To check whether or not a sentence such as "I am thirsty" is a belief, identify the idea that is attached to it and examine whether or not it consists of the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality. If both are present, the attached idea is a belief. End of story. That's the definition. In the case of "I am thirsty", the referred portion of reality are your feelings and the idea as to what's inside that portion of reality are feelings of thirst. If you do not really feel thirsty, then "I am thirsty" is at best a honest but false belief and at worst a lie. If you do feel thirsty, then it's truth.

I have a desire. I don't believe that I have a desire.

You may or may not have a desire to drink something but you certainly expressed a belief that you have it. You said it yourself. You said "I am thirsty". That's you expressing a belief that you have a desire to drink something (e.g. water.) It's not necessarily a belief that you hold -- in case you're lying, for example -- but it's a belief that Iis either true of false, all depending on whether you really possess that desire or not.

No it isn't. I don't believe that I am thirsty. I know that I am thirsty.

You need to go back to school. It's widely known that knowledge is "justified true belief". It's a type of belief -- one that is both true and justified.

Whoever cares about such sentences.

You do (without realizing it.)

It doesn't mean anything! I haven't assigned it any meaning. OBVIOUSLY.

But I have, MORON. You are arguing against MY claim that "Only beliefs have truth value".

So what? I get to assign the meaning to my own words. I can attach as many meanings to a sentence as I want.

Moron, you said that "Every belief can correspond to reality if its user wants it to correspond to reality". That's nonsense, moron. You're confusing beliefs with symbols that are used to communicate beliefs. What beliefs are attached to what symbols is an arbitrary thing, moron. You've been told this a billion times already, moron. It's a banal truism. There's nothing special about it. What matters is that it does not imply that veracity is an arbitrary thing. You are free to attach any belief of your choice to "2 + 2 = 4" but you are not free to decide the veracity of the attached belief.

I am the one insisting on reasoning free from the chains of your made up laws.

You are insisting on being dumb.

I am refering to you, woman.

Well . . . you are the feminized male in this discussion.

I am pretty competent at comprehension.

El oh el.

My IQ is above 170.

Even bigger el oh el.

The fundamental premise of ALL constructive logics is the abandonment of excluded middle.

Nah.

The rejection of excluded middle is preciseluy what makes me interested in constructive dialogue.

You're actually a horrible conversational partner.

Here's a proof of it:

Yes it is.

manipulate verb handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skilful manner.

The word "manipulate" has multiple meanings and you know that very well (you can Google it, if you want, it's right there.) Given that you have an overwhelming desire to disagree, and prove other people wrong, you have decided to conclude that the meaning that I assigned to my use of the word "manipulate" is the one that renders everything I say false. You're a master of strawmen, in short.

Remember this remark of yours, moron?

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

You're either doing it on purpose (because you're paid to act like a moron) or you really are a moron.

Did I control something in a skillful manner? Yes! What did I control? My wife? How did I control her? I used language to request a cup of coffee.
What tool/mechanism/information did I control? My wife and the informatiojn that is in her head. I altered the information in her head in such a way so that she desired to make me a cup of coffee. How did I do that? I asked her for a cup of coffee!

I receved a cup of coffee. Control successful!

MANIPULATION.

I used language to manipulate reality (my wife!) and get a cup of coffee!

You misundestood what I meant by "manipulation". And you did that because you were overwhelemed by your desire to prove me wrong. Normal people do not act this way. As a result, you ended up writing lots of unnecessary words. You wasted your time, you wasted my time. That's why I keep telling you that you're a horrible conversational partner. YOU DO NOT LISTEN. And you do not listen because you are not cooperative and because you want to compete too much.

I am using the word PRECISELY how everybody else uses it when they don't attach some eery connotation to it!

I am manipulating you right now in non-sinister ways, but if you are a paranoid schitzophrenic - raise the alarm!

The more you post, the stupider you appear. The stupider you appear, the more it seems like you're a paid agent. It's a bit difficult for me to conceive that someone can be THIS retarded.

No, it isn't. Blind rule-following is what computers do, not humans.

Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

If our brains functioned properly we wouldn't need any rules. We wouldn't need to invent new forms of logic, mathematics and formal languages.

Mathematics is a human invention (TOOLS! INSTRUMENTS!) to mitigate some of our innate biases.

We make up those tools to tackle particular problems in particular domains, but as we explore/discover new domains we keep changing the rules of reasoning accordingly and in such a way that they actually work! We are yet to find some set of "universal rules" that work across all domains! Because no man-made rule can capture the innate intricacies of a complex nature.

Rules are just tools! You still need to know the limits and applicability of your tools.

To a man with a hammer - everything looks like a nail.
To a man with logic - everything looks like deduction.

More pretentious crap from you.

[Skepdick]

[D]o you insist forcing your vocabulary down my throat?

That's what you're doing but without seeing it.

That exact interaction is YOU doing it and projecting it onto ME.

YOU are insisting on narrating and describing MY being in YOUR language.

You are playing out precisely the game where you think your words about me correspond; but my words about me don't.

So who gets to determine which language corresponds better?

Oh, I have an idea! How about we stick to self-determination. So fuck off. Why won't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

You are blinded by your desire to disagree, to prove other people wrong, to be better than them, to be special, unique and different.

No I am not. My refusal to agree is not a disagreement - only idiots who believe in excluded middle would think that.

But, of course I was expecting that you finally jump into the psychobabble stage. Where you attempt to explain our interacation to yourself in terms of my psychological profile. So predictable - Idiot profiles me as some 20-something year old attempting to define myself, and tries to attack my identity when I don't even have one.

You still haven't figured out that the "sameness" and "difference" are just conceptual games - more metaphysical nonsense.

Any two things are the same, except for their difference.
Any two things are different, except for their similarities.

I am the same as everyone else by the first axiom; and unique and unlike anyone else by the second.

I also have no problem existing anywhere on that continuum just to fuck with your lame attempts at attacking me.

As a consequence, you spend ridiculously low amount of time considering the possibility that other people aren't as wrong as you hope they are.

I don't give a shit if you are "right" or "wrong". I have no interest in moralising with you. I am simply telling you that I don't care about your characterisations of me; or vocabulary about me.

But, of course, there is a case to be made that you've probably spent much of your life playing a game where you have to "prove yoursel right". Or some zero-sum game of wit, argument and intellectual dominance. I expect no less after 2500 years of philosophical stupidity. Everything's a dick-measuring contest since the Ancient Greeks. A silly social status game - I refuse to play, but I will sure take pleasure in fucking it up.

I don't engage on those terms! I don't engage in arguments; or intellectual battles. I don't engage in adversarial games.

I prefer cooperative game theory, but if you want to play stupid games - I will make sure you win a stupid prize.

Your behaviour determines my strategy.

You are uncooperative and anti-social (all the while pretending you're the polar opposite of it.) And this discussion is a proof of it. Anyone with a bit of a brain can see it.

Q.E.D I am neither uncooperative nor anti-social. My refusal to agree to your rules, norms or logic doesn't make me either of those things.

It is only because you expect me to bow to your norms/gods is why you are using those pejoratives.

It has not occurred to you that I am simply being defiant to tyranny which doesn't recognise itself as tyrannycal.

I mean, you are the one who uses a vocabulary such as "right" and "wrong" while I am trying to drag you down to a level where you engage in basic dialectic without any baggage; or sacred cows.

Too bad - you don't know how to slaughter your sacred cows.

I made a claim that only beliefs have truth value. As you usually do, you tried to argue against it without properly understanding it. You just want to disagree, that's all there is to it.

How is is possible that I keep providing relevant counter-examples to claims "I did not understand"? I must be really lucky!
How was it that I provided a non-belief with truth-value to counter your claim that only beliefs have them?

And I don't really know how to explain this to you (given your fondness for bi-modal reasoning): refusal to agree is NOT disagreement. It's the necessary process of arriving at agreement.

A belief is an idea that some portion of reality is such and such. It has two components: a reference to a portion of reality and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality. If an idea is lacking one or both of these components, it's not a belief.

Veracity, or truth value, is the extent to which a belief corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to. It's the degree of similarity between what's inside the referred portion of reality and what the attached idea says is inside that portion of reality.

OK. That's just your conception of what a belief is. Why should I care about it?

I have no use for that concept when I am simply expressing that I am thirsty.

"I believe I am thirsty" is a belief that you have a belief that you're thirsty. "I am thirsty" is a belief that you're thirsty. That's all the difference between the two.

Quit with the sophistry, idiot. By your logic I can also believe that I believe that I am thirsty.

And believe that I believe that I believe that I am thirsty.
And believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I am thirsty.
And believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe that I am thirsty.

I have no USE for the concept of belief when expressing my thirst! That is why I am not using the word "believe" when I state that I am thirsty.

I am fucking thirsty - whether I believe it or not is neither relevant nor material to my being thirsty!

But it's very cute that you are still insisting on narrating my own experiences.

To check whether or not a sentence such as "I am thirsty" is a belief, identify the idea that is attached to it

There is no idea attached to it.

idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

I am not proposing any course of action. I am informing you that I am fucking thirsty!

An idea would be me suggesting you bring me something to drink.

and examine whether or not it consists of the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality.

The expression "I am thirsty" contains NO ideas - NO suggestion as to a possible course of action.

If both are present, the attached idea is a belief. End of story.

Great! SO we agree then - it's not a belief.

That's the definition. In the case of "I am thirsty", the referred portion of reality are your feelings and the idea as to what's inside that portion of reality are feelings of thirst. If you do not really feel thirsty, then "I am thirsty" is at best a honest but false belief and at worst a lie. If you do feel thirsty, then it's truth.

PRECISELY! It's a non-belief with a truth-value!

Which is what I fucking said all along. You fucking disagreeable time-wasting, blame-shifting p****!

I have a desire. I don't believe that I have a desire.

You may or may not have a desire to drink something but you certainly expressed a belief that you have it.

No I fucking didn't. I know what I am expressing because I am the one expressing it.

If I wanted to express a benlief - I would've done so. I didn't.

You said it yourself. You said "I am thirsty". That's you expressing a belief that you have a desire to drink something (e.g. water.)

You are clearly struggling with English comprehension because I never said that. In fact I said the exact opposite.

1. "I am thirsti" does NOT express a belief. I should know - I am the one expressing the non-belief.
2. My expressing of my thirs is NOT an expression of desire for water or any other thirst-quenching liquid.

If I wanted to express such a desire I would've said "Please can I get some water?" (if I wanted you to get me water); or "I am going to drink some water." (if I was going to get my own water). In fact - if I was going to get my own water I wouldn't have even said anything. I would've just gone and drank water.

It's not necessarily a belief that you hold -- in case you're lying, for example -- but it's a belief that Iis either true of false, all depending on whether you really possess that desire or not.

It's not a belief. Either it's true that I am thirsty, or it's not true that I am thirsty.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ME; OR ANYONE BELIEVES.

You need to go back to school. It's widely known that knowledge is "justified true belief". It's a type of belief -- one that is both true and justified.

No, that's just the JTB conception of knowledge. I don't subscribe to it.

Naturally, because there is NO justification required for asserting that I am fucking thirsty!

You do (without realizing it.)

I may or may not care about such sentences, but is beyond the limits of your knowledge to know such things.

But I have, MORON. You are arguing against MY claim that "Only beliefs have truth value".

I am not arguing, moron! I DON'T ARGUE. Why is this so fucking difficult for you?

I am giving you an immediate counter-example to your claim by showing you expressions which DON'T express beliefs, yet clearly have truth-value!

The fact that you are unable to update your own hypothesis in accordance with the new evidence tells me simply that you are no fucking scientist.

Which is probably why you've defaulted to a mode of interaction which is no different to sheer brute force - you are now trying to "win an argument" and force me to accept your claim. Moron.

I reject your claim - quit pushing.

So what? I get to assign the meaning to my own words. I can attach as many meanings to a sentence as I want.

Moron, you said that "Every belief can correspond to reality if its user wants it to correspond to reality". That's nonsense, moron. You're confusing beliefs with symbols that are used to communicate beliefs.

I am not confusing any such things, moron. I have repeatedly used the term "expressions"; the verb "expressing" when I speak about the process of converting my thoughts into language.

My English expressions may or may not express beliefs.

What beliefs are attached to what symbols is an arbitrary thing, moron.

Idiot. Do you understand how transitivity works?

If the belief is attached to the symbol "red". And the symbol "red" is attached to this color.; then the belief is attached to this color.

Did you skip semiotics class or what?

You've been told this a billion times already, moron. It's a banal truism. There's nothing special about it. What matters is that it does not imply that veracity is an arbitrary thing.

It's literally what it implies, moron. Your true is my false.

You are free to attach any belief of your choice to "2 + 2 = 4" but you are not free to decide the veracity of the attached belief.

Of course I am! Who else is going to determine "veracity" and how?

You are insisting on being dumb.

Your dumb is my smart. What's your point?

I place no value on truth-as-correspondence.

Well . . . you are the feminized male in this discussion.

I am? I don't even hold an identity. Did I forget to mention that I reject that axiom also?

I DO stuff, but I AM not anything.

The fundamental premise of ALL constructive logics is the abandonment of excluded middle.

Nah.

Of course, you can make up your own facts but... it's true.

You're actually a horrible conversational partner.

I assure you, it's all your fault. I don't have this issue with non-philosophers.

I get along just fine with pragmatists who don't peddle metaphysical normatives.

The word "manipulate" has multiple meanings and you know that very well (you can Google it, if you want, it's right there.) Given that you have an overwhelming desire to disagree, and prove other people wrong

I have neither a desire to disagree; nor prove you wrong.

But those are your words - your vocabulary - your thoughts.

you have decided to conclude that the meaning that I assigned to my use of the word "manipulate" is the one that renders everything I say false. You're a master of strawmen, in short.

Nothing to that effect! I have NO desire to use the word "manipulate" in the manner that you are using it (bundled with its sinister connotation).

I have every desire to arrive at an objective, impartial and non-emotionally loaded use of the word "manipulate".

Remember this remark of yours, moron?

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

Yes, moron. Do you rember me saying that the two words are synonymous; once you discard the sinister connotation?

I use English to influence towards making me coffee.
I use English to manipulate towards making me coffee.

Can you see how those two sentences denote the exactly the same event once you drop the emotional baggage?

You're either doing it on purpose (because you're paid to act like a moron) or you really are a moron.

False dichotomy.

You misundestood what I meant by "manipulation".

I didn't. I rejected your connotation only.

And you did that because you were overwhelemed by your desire to prove me wrong.

I don't care if you are right or wrong. I don't want to use the word "manipulate" in that way.

But do notice the language you are using - the very ideas of "being right; or wrong" - that's your state of mind.

Normal people do not act this way.

I wouldn't know what a "normal" person is. "Normalcy" is a statistical construct - there are no exemplars of "normal" people.

That's such a reductionist thing to say. What is your search heuristic for identifying "normal" people, exactly?

As a result, you ended up writing lots of unnecessary words. You wasted your time, you wasted my time. That's why I keep telling you that you're a horrible conversational partner. YOU DO NOT LISTEN.

Dude. I am far from an ideal listener, but I am a far better listener than you!

I mean, you ar unable to hear even literal expressions such as "I am NOT expressing belief when I say that I am thirsty".

Somebody who actually knows how to listen would hear, understand and acknowledge that fact. Instead you've been trying to gaslight me by insisting that I am expressing belief.

Moron.

And you do not listen because you are not cooperative and because you want to compete too much.

I fucking abhor competition! Anything which reeks of competition is a destruction of knowledge.

But I will win any competition you drag me into; and I will end any fight you start.

So do examine your own behaviour.

The more you post, the stupider you appear.

And I should care about your conceptions of "smart" and "stupid" why?

The stupider you appear, the more it seems like you're a paid agent.

And I should care about your conspiratorial tendencies why?

Given your propensity to project maybe we should ask for your sponsor?

It's a bit difficult for me to conceive that someone can be THIS retarded.

I can trivially conceive of somebody who's even more retarted.

You.

(I will end any fight you start.)

Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

In the absence of empirical practice there's no difference between intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism.

It's all armchair philosophy.

Lucky for us, one of us is an actual practitioner and knows a thing or million about constructing rules for computers - reality rapidly weeds out all bad ideas.

More pretentious crap from you.

That's rich coming from the guy peddling and worshipping the falase God of logic.

[Magnus Anderson]

My refusal to agree is not a disagreement

You are not merely refusing to agree. You are activaly, desperately and pathetically trying to prove the other person wrong. And as a consequence of that, you are not listening. Because you're not listening, you're making all sorts of mistakes. And because you're making all sorts of mistakes, you're making the conversation unnecessarily difficult.

only idiots who believe in excluded middle would think that

That has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

I don't give a shit if you are "right" or "wrong".

Oh yes, you very much do.

But, of course, there is a case to be made that you've probably spent much of your life playing a game where you have to "prove yoursel right". Or some zero-sum game of wit, argument and intellectual dominance. I expect no less after 2500 years of philosophical stupidity. Everything's a dick-measuring contest since the Ancient Greeks. A silly social status game - I refuse to play, but I will sure take pleasure in fucking it up.

I don't engage on those terms! I don't engage in arguments; or intellectual battles. I don't engage in adversarial games.

More or less, that's the game that you're playing.

I prefer cooperative game theory, but if you want to play stupid games - I will make sure you win a stupid prize.

Your behaviour determines my strategy.

You're not interested in cooperation.

I am neither uncooperative nor anti-social. My refusal to agree to your rules, norms or logic doesn't make me either of those things.

You can prove that you're cooperative by ASKING QUESTIONS and LISTENING instead of mindlessly presuming things. If I say that you're uncooperative, ASK ME why I believe that instead of merely ranting about how you're not (you like to talk about yourself a lot, reminding all of us how self-conceited you are.) But it's probably too late for you at this point because you have already provoked, thanks to your own anti-social tendencies, a discussion that is everything but civil.

It is only because you expect me to bow to your norms/gods is why you are using those pejoratives.

Stop lying. Noone expects you to bow to anything. I merely stated my opinion that happens to be different from yours and that happens to be quite strong. You just don't like it and are being overly dramatic. "These evil people with these Classical Logic opinions are going to turn us into slaves! Waa waa waah! We better fight them with all our might!"

It has not occurred to you that I am simply being defiant to tyranny which doesn't recognise itself as tyrannycal.

That makes sense. Except that there is no tyranny. It's all up in your head.

I mean, you are the one who uses a vocabulary such as "right" and "wrong" while I am trying to drag you down to a level where you engage in basic dialectic without any baggage; or sacred cows.

See how little is required for you to accuse someone else of tyranny? It's ridiculous.

How is is possible that I keep providing relevant counter-examples to claims "I did not understand"? I must be really lucky!

You can LISTEN for once e.g. by ASKING QUESTIONS. If someone you're listening to tells you you are misunderstanding them that's a pretty strong reason to STOP and ASK them what is it that you're misunderstanding. Simply deciding for yourself that you understood everything is IDIOTIC. It's what self-conceited morons such as yourself do.

How was it that I provided a non-belief with truth-value to counter your claim that only beliefs have them?

Before you can do that, you have to UNDERSTAND the definition of the word "belief" that I use. Can you describe for me the meaning that I assign to the word "belief" and explain to me the manner in which "I am thirsty" does not match that definition?

And I don't really know how to explain this to you (given your fondness for bi-modal reasoning): refusal to agree is NOT disagreement. It's the necessary process of arriving at agreement.

You are mindlessly presuming that I'm confusing "Not agreeing with someone" with "Trying to prove the other person wrong". I am not. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle (as you mindlessly keep saying.) I am merely saying that you're doing the latter, not the former, and that you're blind to it.

OK. That's just your conception of what a belief is. Why should I care about it?

You should care about it because you're addressing MY claim. You are not addressing YOUR claim. In order to evaluate the truth value of a claim, you have to understand that claim. And to understand a claim, you have to understand the way the words the author is using to construct his claim are defined by him. Not the way they are defined by you, not the way they are defined by others, but the way they are defined by the speaker. If you do not do that, you will end up with a strawman. If you take their words, such as the word "belief", and imbue them with some other meaning, e.g. your won, you will end up with a strawman. You will end up addressing something they did not say. That's why you should care.

You can't say that the concept that I attached to the word "belief" is false because word-concept associations have no truth value. There are no true and false word-concept associations. A word-concept association is not a belief. It's merely an association between a word and a concept. So you can't object to that. There are other things you can complain about e.g. the effect of the way I define my words on the general public. But I take it that you don't care about that.

By your logic I can also believe that I believe that I am thirsty.

You can but it's not necessary for the subject at hand.

I have no USE for the concept of belief when expressing my thirst! That is why I am not using the word "believe" when I state that I am thirsty.

You don't have to use it. It's still a belief. "You are a male" is a belief even though it's not mentioned in the statement. "Joe Biden is the president of the USA" is a belief even though it's not mentioned in the statement. "2 + 2 = 4" is a belief even though no words are used at all. It does not have to be mentioned. It's enough for it to be implied.

I am fucking thirsty - whether I believe it or not is neither relevant nor material to my being thirsty!

It does not matter WHO beliefs and whether ANYONE believes it. There are actual beliefs i.e. beliefs that are held by someone somewhere. And then there are potential beliefs i.e. beliefs that are not necessarily held by anyone but that can be held by people. We are talking about the latter. "I am thirsty" is a potential belief i.e. a belief that can be held by people regardless of whether or not it's held by anyone at this or any other point in time. You might be lying, for example, in which case it's not a belief you hold (merely one you want other people to hold.) What matters is that "I am thirsty" is a sentence with an idea attached to it that has 1) a reference to a portion of reality (your feelings), and 2) an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality (feelings of thirst). That's what makes it a belief. No commitment is required.

There is no idea attached to it.

Then the sentence is meaningless, and because it is meaningless, it has no truth value.

idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

I am not proposing any course of action. I am informing you that I am fucking thirsty!

An idea would be me suggesting you bring me something to drink.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/idea
"any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity."

PRECISELY! It's a non-belief with a truth-value!

Which is what I fucking said all along. You fucking disagreeable time-wasting, blame-shifting p****!

Stop pretending I am saying things that agree with you. I *never* said that "I am thirsty" is a non-belief. That's your own bullshit based on your misunderstanding of the word "idea" as well as the word "belief".

No I fucking didn't. I know what I am expressing because I am the one expressing it.

If I wanted to express a benlief - I would've done so. I didn't.

Well, I made an effort to adjust my post precisely in order to avoid this kind of pedantic crap. Obviously, it was too late.

You are clearly struggling with English comprehension because I never said that. In fact I said the exact opposite.

1. "I am thirsti" does NOT express a belief. I should know - I am the one expressing the non-belief.
2. My expressing of my thirs is NOT an expression of desire for water or any other thirst-quenching liquid.

It's IRRELEVANT. You are MISSING THE POINT. NOONE gives a shit what is it that your feelings are inclining you to drink and NOONE gives a shit whether or not you really believe that you have those feelings.

It's not a belief. Either it's true that I am thirsty, or it's not true that I am thirsty.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ME; OR ANYONE BELIEVES.

There you go. The problem is that you think that what I mean by "belief" is an actual belief i.e. one that someone holds.

Naturally, because there is NO justification required for asserting that I am fucking thirsty!

There actually is. You have to be justified in everything you believe and do.

I am not arguing, moron! I DON'T ARGUE.

Can you be more retarded than this?

I am giving you an immediate counter-example to your claim

In other words, you are arguing against my claim.

by showing you expressions which DON'T express beliefs, yet clearly have truth-value!

ANd in order to do that, you have to understand the manner in which I define the word "belief".

Which you haven't.

If the belief is attached to the symbol "red". And the symbol "red" is attached to this color.; then the belief is attached to this color.

You are talking gibberish, moron. Colors AREN'T beliefs.

You've been told this a billion times already, moron. It's a banal truism. There's nothing special about it. What matters is that it does not imply that veracity is an arbitrary thing.

It's literally what it implies, moron. Your true is my false.

Nah, we're merely attaching two different beliefs to one and the same symbol. We are NOT assigning different truth value to one and the same belief. The mistake that you're making -- and you've been told this before -- is that you're conflating BELIEFS with SYMBOLS USED TO EXPRESS BELIEFS. One and the same symbol can be used to represent any belief you can think of. If two people are using one and the same symbol, they are NOT necessarily attaching the same belief to it. That's what allows for John's "2 + 2 = 4" to be true and Mark's "2 + 2 = 4" to be false -- the fact that they are talking about two different things. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law of excluded middle.

Of course I am! Who else is going to determine "veracity" and how?

Reality determines it. You can only determine your own opinion about it.

I am? I don't even hold an identity. Did I forget to mention that I reject that axiom also?

Noone cares what you think about yourself.

I have NO desire to use the word "manipulate" in the manner that you are using it (bundled with its sinister connotation).

Proof that you have a desire to misunderstand others so that you can attack them.

I have every desire to arrive at an objective, impartial and non-emotionally loaded use of the word "manipulate".

Are you a psychopath? Or a sociopath? Do you have a diagnosis?

Do you rember me saying that the two words are synonymous; once you discard the sinister connotation?

Who gives a shit?

I wouldn't know what a "normal" person is.

I am sure you don't.

I mean, you ar unable to hear even literal expressions such as "I am NOT expressing belief when I say that I am thirsty".

THat's your presumption which is a consequence of your inability to see that you're being irrelevant. You like to talk too much . . . about completely irrelevant stuff.

Somebody who actually knows how to listen would hear, understand and acknowledge that fact. Instead you've been trying to gaslight me by insisting that I am expressing belief.

Poor victim. I'm so sad.

[Skepdick]

My refusal to agree is not a disagreement

You are not merely refusing to agree. You are activaly, desperately and pathetically trying to prove the other person wrong.

No, I am not. I said it explicitly, but it's super annoying having to play the "guilty until proven innocent" game in the court of your emotions.

But I can see why it might appear that way to somebody who has inadvertently accepted black-and-white thinking as a consequence of a two-valued logic.

Quit dragging us into zero-sum interactions.

And as a consequence of that, you are not listening.

That's rich coming from you.

Because you're not listening, you're making all sorts of mistakes. And because you're making all sorts of mistakes, you're making the conversation unnecessarily difficult.

Mistakes? How is that possible when I doing precisely what I want to be doing.

only idiots who believe in excluded middle would think that

That has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

It has everything to do with the inherently dichotomous nature of two-valued logics.

I don't give a shit if you are "right" or "wrong".

Oh yes, you very much do.

And you continue in your usual idiotic repertoire: insisting on telling me what I "really" think.
Despite having been told otherwise. Multiple times.

More or less, that's the game that you're playing.

And you continue in your usual idiotic repertoire: insisting on telling me what I "really" think.
Despite having been told otherwise. Multiple times.

You're not interested in cooperation.

And you continue in your usual idiotic repertoire: insisting on telling me what I "really" think.
Despite having been told otherwise. Multiple times.

I am neither uncooperative nor anti-social. My refusal to agree to your rules, norms or logic doesn't make me either of those things.

You can prove that you're cooperative by ASKING QUESTIONS and LISTENING instead of mindlessly presuming things.

I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am cooperative.

The fact that you are experiencing me any other way is a direct result of your attitude towards me.

Consult with a mirror.

If I say that you're uncooperative, ASK ME why I believe that

I don't care why you believe falsehoods. It's your problem.

instead of merely ranting about how you're not

Notice how you my assertion that I am NOT uncooperative are "mere rants", but yoru beliefs aren't.

You are so fucking desperate to be the centre of attention.

(you like to talk about yourself a lot, reminding all of us how self-conceited you are.)

I cared not to talk about myself. Right until you started speaking falsehoods about me.

And now you are playing poor victim whose beliefs were unexamined. Shame!

It's not other people to unpack your bullshit, moron. If you have issues - find a shrink and pay them.

But it's probably too late for you at this point because you have already provoked, thanks to your own anti-social tendencies, a discussion that is everything but civil.

Q.E.D You think it's my fault, and not yours. Very strange form of projection and lack of self-reflection.

It is only because you expect me to bow to your norms/gods is why you are using those pejoratives.

Stop lying. Noone expects you to bow to anything. I merely stated my opinion that happens to be different from yours and that happens to be quite strong.

"Merely"? Is that what you call an opinion which claims that a "law" (which I have denied) is undeniable?

But, of course I understand your anger. It's like a Christian being told their God doesn't exist. Your brain has no way of resolving its own crisis of faith.

You just don't like it and are being overly dramatic. "These evil people with these Classical Logic opinions are going to turn us into slaves! Waa waa waah! We better fight them with all our might!"

Well, yeah. If being told that your "law" is not a law is "overly dramatic" then I am guilty as charged.

In so far as "fighting you with all my might" amounts to telling you to fuck off - consider yourself fought. Of course, you are indeed being a little over dramatic.

The only lesson you need to walk away from this interaction is to learn how to take NO for an answer.

NO. I will not accept the law of excluded middle.
NO. I will not accept the principle of bivalence.
NO. I will not accept two-valued logic.

Why is this so difficult for you; and why do you keep pushing once you've been told NO?

It has not occurred to you that I am simply being defiant to tyranny which doesn't recognise itself as tyrannycal.

That makes sense. Except that there is no tyranny. It's all up in your head.

Well lets see.

You refuse to accept my rejection of your "law".
You refuse to accept my rejection of your logic.
You refuse to accept my rejection of your social norms.

Where does the conversation go to from here given that you are desperately trying to force me to accept what I've already rejected.

Should we set up a congregation to attempt to reinstill your faith in a God; or a religion you've already rejected?

I mean, you are the one who uses a vocabulary such as "right" and "wrong" while I am trying to drag you down to a level where you engage in basic dialectic without any baggage; or sacred cows.

See how little is required for you to accuse someone else of tyranny? It's ridiculous.

You say "little" - I say "enough".

You keep dichotomising every interaction!
You keep framing it as a zero-sum game.

It's not really your fault - it's just your logic, but in so far as that thinking directly undermines coopeartion and pits interlocutors against each other it's fucking tyrannical and totally ass-backwards!

How is is possible that I keep providing relevant counter-examples to claims "I did not understand"? I must be really lucky!

You can LISTEN for once e.g. by ASKING QUESTIONS. If someone you're listening to tells you you are misunderstanding them that's a pretty strong reason to STOP and ASK them what is it that you're misunderstanding. Simply deciding for yourself that you understood everything is IDIOTIC. It's what self-conceited morons such as yourself do.

You dumb fuck. I don't want to listen or ask you questions about MY STATE OF MIND.

I don't care to understand what it is you think that I think! I already know what I think!

The fact that you are trying to position yourself as the victim here says everything there needs to be said about you!

It's NEVER your place to make claims about MY MIND.

How was it that I provided a non-belief with truth-value to counter your claim that only beliefs have them?

Before you can do that, you have to UNDERSTAND the definition of the word "belief" that I use. Can you describe for me the meaning that I assign to the word "belief" and explain to me the manner in which "I am thirsty" does not match that definition?

My thirst is not about your definition of "belief" and how misunderstood you are, you self-centered twat!

Your definitions DO NOT APPLY (ever!) to MY self-expressions! Is the concept of boundaries foreign so foreign to you?

It's so damn obvious how desperate you are to control the narrative about my own damn state of mind!
You are desperately trying to dictate what I say about my own damn thoughts, feelings and experiences!

Ooooh, but I am "over-reacting" to call you a fucking tyrant.

Go get fucked, you boring and predictable control freak!

You are mindlessly presuming that I'm confusing "Not agreeing with someone" with "Trying to prove the other person wrong". I am not. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle (as you mindlessly keep saying.) I am merely saying that you're doing the latter, not the former, and that you're blind to it.

Yes. You are "merely saying" that you can see things that I can't. Desperately crawling for that status; that authority and dominion over me.

Now that you've declared your supremacy would it be fair to remind you that you are self-centered fucking idiot trying to place himself in a position of authority so that his narrative about my actions can be treated as gospel.

Fuck off. Tyrant.

OK. That's just your conception of what a belief is. Why should I care about it?

You should care about it because you're addressing MY claim. You are not addressing YOUR claim.

Dumb fucking tyrant. Struggling for relevance and control over the narrative!

It's not your fucking place to make any claims about my state of mind!

In order to evaluate the truth value of a claim, you have to understand that claim.

No, I don't. You don't get to stake any claims to my mind, you fucking tyrant.

And to understand a claim, you have to understand the way the words the author is using to construct his claim are defined by him. Not the way they are defined by you, not the way they are defined by others, but the way they are defined by the speaker.

Q.E.D you've self-appointed yourself as "the speaker". Pretty fucking weird that.. since the part of reality you are speaking about (the contents of my mind!) is not accessible to you.

If you do not do that, you will end up with a strawman. If you take their words, such as the word "belief", and imbue them with some other meaning, e.g. your won, you will end up with a strawman. You will end up addressing something they did not say. That's why you should care.

You self-centered fucking twat. You are still trying to make MY expression of my thirst about YOUR definition of "belief".

You can't say that the concept that I attached to the word "belief" is false because word-concept associations have no truth value.

I can. That's what false means in my logic - the empty set. The uninhabited type. The bottom type. Falsum.

There are no true and false word-concept associations. A word-concept association is not a belief. It's merely an association between a word and a concept. So you can't object to that. There are other things you can complain about e.g. the effect of the way I define my words on the general public. But I take it that you don't care about that.

You'd be 100% correct - I don't care about applying your definitions to myself.

I have no USE for the concept of belief when expressing my thirst! That is why I am not using the word "believe" when I state that I am thirsty.

You don't have to use it. It's still a belief.

Not if your definitions don't apply to that portion of reality.

And they don't. Because that portion of reality is not yours to define.

It does not matter WHO beliefs and whether ANYONE believes it. There are actual beliefs i.e. beliefs that are held by someone somewhere. And then there are potential beliefs i.e. beliefs that are not necessarily held by anyone but that can be held by people. We are talking about the latter. "I am thirsty" is a potential belief i.e. a belief that can be held by people regardless of whether or not it's held by anyone at this or any other point in time. You might be lying, for example, in which case it's not a belief you hold (merely one you want other people to hold.) What matters is that "I am thirsty" is a sentence with an idea attached to it that has 1) a reference to a portion of reality (your feelings), and 2) an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality (feelings of thirst). That's what makes it a belief. No commitment is required.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

My thirst is not a belief.

There is no idea attached to it.

Then the sentence is meaningless, and because it is meaningless, it has no truth value.

You seem to be moving the goalposts. Wasnt'a sentence meaningful so long as I attach some meaning to it?

And the meaning I attach to it need not be an idea.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/idea
"any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity."

Ah, no wonder! You are using the wrong dictionary

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... glish/idea

Not that your definitions matter to me.

Stop pretending I am saying things that agree with you. I *never* said that "I am thirsty" is a non-belief. That's your own bullshit based on your misunderstanding of the word "idea" as well as the word "belief".

Stop pretending that an understanding different to yours is a "misunderstanding".

Well, I made an effort to adjust my post precisely in order to avoid this kind of pedantic crap. Obviously, it was too late.

You did? So all of your attempts to insist that "it's still a belief" despite me telling you it isn't... ? What was that about, if not dominance?

It's IRRELEVANT. You are MISSING THE POINT. NOONE gives a shit what is it that your feelings are inclining you to drink and NOONE gives a shit whether or not you really believe that you have those feelings.

I am noone?

OK. Continue with your monologue.

There you go. The problem is that you think that what I mean by "belief" is an actual belief i.e. one that someone holds.

Why are you still talking about "beliefs"? Drop the bone already.

Naturally, because there is NO justification required for asserting that I am fucking thirsty!

There actually is. You have to be justified in everything you believe and do.

OK. Show me!

Go ahead and justify the claim that " You have to be justified in everything you believe and do."

I am not arguing, moron! I DON'T ARGUE.

Can you be more retarded than this?

OF course! I can always aspire to be as retarded as you.

In other words, you are arguing against my claim.

No, I am not. I am merely pointing empirical counter-examples. In science it's called "falsification"

If you feel that reality is arguing with you - fine. I am jus the messegner.

by showing you expressions which DON'T express beliefs, yet clearly have truth-value!

ANd in order to do that, you have to understand the manner in which I define the word "belief".

Which you haven't.

And I don't have to. Your definitions don't apply.

If the belief is attached to the symbol "red". And the symbol "red" is attached to this color.; then the belief is attached to this color.

You are talking gibberish, moron. Colors AREN'T beliefs.

You are contradicting yourself, moron!

Linguistic terms ABOUT colors are beliefs ABOUT the meaning of words!

You believe that "red" MEANS THIS COLOR.
You DON'T believe that "red" MEANS THIS COLOR.

Why do I have to explain your own damn words to you?

Nah, we're merely attaching two different beliefs to one and the same symbol.

Holy shit!!! Have you been dragging us down to your level of stupidity thinking this is about symbolism!?!?

Look past the symbols. What you recognize as one color - I could recognise as a continuum of a thousand colors!
We can group; or separate; compose; or decompose our experiences into as many; or as few different concepts as we want!
Combine lower levels of abstraction into higher levels of abstraction.

I conceive our interaction as a system; or I can conceive it as a system of systems.
I can say that there is only us - no me and you. Defaulting to holism.
I can say there is only me and you but no us. Defaulting to reductionism.

Can you stop being so stupid?!? This is not about symbols. The symbols are for communication.

We are NOT assigning different truth value to one and the same belief. The mistake that you're making -- and you've been told this before -- is that you're conflating BELIEFS with SYMBOLS USED TO EXPRESS BELIEFS.

I am not making such a mistake! How else would you prefer me to communicate with you? Telepathy?

One and the same symbol can be used to represent any belief you can think of.

Any belief, concept or idea can be used to represent any experience!

If two people are using one and the same symbol, they are NOT necessarily attaching the same belief to it.

If two people are havig one and the same experience, they are NOT necessarily attaching the same belief; idea or concept to it.

So correspondence fails!

Reality determines it. You can only determine your own opinion about it.

Reality doesn't determine how we, humans, decide to chop it up into parts!

For starters. You are so fucking stupid you've already chopped up reality into (at least!) two parts:

Part 1: reality.
Part 2: You

Dumb dualist.

I am? I don't even hold an identity. Did I forget to mention that I reject that axiom also?

Noone cares what you think about yourself.

Then why do you actually care what reality thinks about itself?

Humans (part of reality) form opinions about reality. It's pretty weird that a small part of reality is trying to understand the whole thing.

I have NO desire to use the word "manipulate" in the manner that you are using it (bundled with its sinister connotation).

Proof that you have a desire to misunderstand others so that you can attack them.

Lack of a desire to undersstand is not a desire to misunderstand.

You dumb fucking classical logician.

I have every desire to arrive at an objective, impartial and non-emotionally loaded use of the word "manipulate".

Are you a psychopath? Or a sociopath? Do you have a diagnosis?

No, you fucking idiot. You are the one claiming that you don't want to talk about yourself.

So why do you keep bleeding all of your feelings and emotions into the words that you are using?

That's NOT the way to objectivity.

Do you rember me saying that the two words are synonymous; once you discard the sinister connotation?

Who gives a shit?

People who care about impartiality and objectivity.

THat's your presumption which is a consequence of your inability to see that you're being irrelevant.

You like to talk too much . . . about completely irrelevant stuff.

Oh, OK. So now you've appointed yourself as the authority on relevancy.

Somebody who actually knows how to listen would hear, understand and acknowledge that fact. Instead you've been trying to gaslight me by insisting that I am expressing belief.

Poor victim. I'm so sad.

Q.E.D You are a ill-mannered, ill-spirited cunt. Anywhich way I treat you, you probably deserve even worse.

[Magnus Anderson]

My thirst is not about your definition of "belief" and how misunderstood you are, you self-centered twat!

I made a claim that "Only beliefs have truth value". You tried to argue against that by giving a counter-example, that counter-example being "I am thirsty". Your argument was that "I am thirsty" is an example of something that has truth value even though it's not a belief. You were, basically, arguing against something I said. And if you want to argue against something someone else said, you have to understand how they define the words they use. When you argue against something someone else said by interpreting it any way you like, it is you who are being self-centered not the other person for demanding that you understand their statement properly before you criticize it.

You seem to be moving the goalposts. Wasnt'a sentence meaningful so long as I attach some meaning to it?

Yes. When you attach a meaning to a sentence, you attach an idea to it.

Ah, no wonder! You are using the wrong dictionary

It's a word that has more than one meaning. You merely misunderstood what I meant by "idea". You don't want to admit that, so what you're trying to do now is claim that you did not misunderstand what I said, that you merely understood it in a different way. You were trying to criticize me. That was your goal. You wanted to show that I am wrong, that my claim is false, which is why you provided a counter-example. The purpose of counter-examples is to show that other people are wrong. And what that means is that you wanted to understand me correctly, not merely freely interpret me. And even if it's true that you were doing nothing but freely interpreting me, what's the point? Why should anyone care? How is that relevant? This is a discussion, not a place where we do whatever we want to do.

Not that your definitions matter to me.

If my definitions don't matter to you then what I'm saying does not matter to you. In other words, you do not have a desire to listen.

No, I am not. I am merely pointing empirical counter-examples. In science it's called "falsification"

Yes and the point of such a practice is to argue against, to disprove, what someone else is saying. That's what you're doing.

I can say that there is only us - no me and you. Defaulting to holism.
I can say there is only me and you but no us. Defaulting to reductionism.

There is both "us" and "me and you" for the simple reason that "us" and "me and you" mean one and the same thing. They are merely two different symbols for one and the same thing. It's like "2 + 2" and "4". Two different symbols for one and the same thing.

Reality doesn't determine how we, humans, decide to chop it up into parts!

When you "chop [reality] into parts", what you're doing is you're establishing the portion of reality that is of interest you. That's completely up to you.

But whether or not what's inside that portion of reality matches what you think is inside it is NOT up to you.

Q.E.D You are a ill-mannered, ill-spirited ****. Anywhich way I treat you, you probably deserve even worse.

Learn how to interact with people and you will avoid getting your feelings hurt.

[Skepdick]

My thirst is not about your definition of "belief" and how misunderstood you are, you self-centered twat!

I made a claim that "Only beliefs have truth value". You tried to argue against that by giving a counter-example, that counter-example being "I am thirsty". Your argument was that "I am thirsty" is an example of something that has truth value even though it's not a belief. You were, basically, arguing against something I said. And if you want to argue against something someone else said, you have to understand how they define the words they use. When you argue against something someone else said by interpreting it any way you like, it is you who are being self-centered not the other person for demanding that you understand their statement properly before you criticize it.

Here we go again. Which part of "I don't argue" went over your head? This is not an argument.

I am not criticising your statement - I am rejecting it. You don't have to agree with rejectiion, but that's your problem not mine.

Given your definitions it may be a tautology that "only beliefs have truth value", but since I don't consider that to be true and I find it to be too useless a notion of truth I have no reason to even consider your definitions. They are not useful!

You seem to be moving the goalposts. Wasnt'a sentence meaningful so long as I attach some meaning to it?

Yes. When you attach a meaning to a sentence, you attach an idea to it.

So what idea did you attach to the sentence "square circles"?

What did you conceptualise, understand and become aware of in your mind before you uttered the expression "square circles"?

It sure sounds like the only thing you became aware off was an empty set of shapes.

Ah, no wonder! You are using the wrong dictionary

It's a word that has more than one meaning. You merely misunderstood what I meant by "idea". You don't want to admit that, so what you're trying to do now is claim that you did not misunderstand what I said, that you merely understood it in a different way.

You know what I thik happened? You attached no idea to the sentence "square circles" and went on bullshitting your way out of the mess instead of simply admitting that the sentence is meaningless.

And now we are here.

You were trying to criticize me. That was your goal. You wanted to show that I am wrong, that my claim is false, which is why you provided a counter-example. The purpose of counter-examples is to show that other people are wrong.

Fucking zero-sum thinker. The purpose of counter-examples is to show that your ideas fail to account for the counte-rexample.

That's not mean you are "wrong", it means your account is incomplete.

And what that means is that you wanted to understand me correctly, not merely freely interpret me. And even if it's true that you were doing nothing but freely interpreting me, what's the point? Why should anyone care? How is that relevant? This is a discussion, not a place where we do whatever we want to do.

Discussions without clear objectives are precisely discussions where we can do whatever we want to do.

There's no ojective here, except particupation.

Not that your definitions matter to me.

If my definitions don't matter to you then what I'm saying does not matter to you. In other words, you do not have a desire to listen.

If that was my desire then I wouldn't listen. Your account of the events unfolding appears to fail to account for my on-going listening.

Seems you have a problem with your theory.

No, I am not. I am merely pointing empirical counter-examples. In science it's called "falsification"

Yes and the point of such a practice is to argue against, to disprove, what someone else is saying. That's what you're doing.

No. The point of coiunte-rexamples is for you to update/revise your model of reality by integrating new information/evidence.

That's how learning works, yet you appear incapable of learning.

There is both "us" and "me and you" for the simple reason that "us" and "me and you" mean one and the same thing. They are merely two different symbols for one and the same thing. It's like "2 + 2" and "4". Two different symbols for one and the same thing.

You really are incapable of English comprehension. This is not about symbols - this is about ontological conception.

"US" conceptualises an ontology with one entity.
"Me and you" conceptualises an ontology with two entities.

Surely you are not trying to convince us that 1 and 2 are symbols for the same thing?

Reality doesn't determine how we, humans, decide to chop it up into parts!

When you "chop [reality] into parts", what you're doing is you're establishing the portion of reality that is of interest you. That's completely up to you.

You've stated no interests, but you've sure done a lot of chopping...

But whether or not what's inside that portion of reality matches what you think is inside it is NOT up to you.

I would agree with that, but unfortunately you are only parroting those words without actually understanding their implication.

If it's not up to decide what's inside any given part of reality; why then did you not listen when reality (me!) told you that there are no beliefs in the part that is my head?

Learn how to interact with people and you will avoid getting your feelings hurt.

I find this to work entirely backwards - learn to tolerate and ignore your feelings being hurt; let your sacred cows and your ego get slaughtered. Only then will you come to realize that the only thing hindering interaction was you and your unchecked normatives.

Nobody likes conversing with evangelists - whether they are prosletysing their religion; or their brand of logic. Same thing really.

[Magnus Anderson]

Here we go again. Which part of "I don't argue" went over your head? This is not an argument.

I am not criticising your statement - I am rejecting it. You don't have to agree with rejectiion, but that's your problem not mine.

You said that it's false. That's the purpsoe of your counter-example. To show that it's false. And that's all I mean when I say that you're arguing against it.

So what idea did you attach to the sentence "square circles"?

What did you conceptualise, understand and become aware of in your mind before you uttered the expression "square circles"?

It sure sounds like the only thing you became aware off was an empty set of shapes.

You know what I thik happened? You attached no idea to the sentence "square circles" and went on bullshitting your way out of the mess instead of simply admitting that the sentence is meaningless.

So you suddenly decided to return to square circles.

The purpose of counter-examples is to show that your ideas fail to account for the counte-rexample.

Yes, which means it's false. If there is a single non-belief that is true, my claim that "Only beliefs have truth value" is false.

That's not mean you are "wrong", it means your account is incomplete.

It means I am wrong.

You REALLY have SERIOUS issues with language.

Discussions without clear objectives are precisely discussions where we can do whatever we want to do.

Discussions have a very clear objective.

There's no ojective here, except particupation.

Not true at all.

No. The point of coiunte-rexamples is for you to update/revise your model of reality by integrating new information/evidence.

There is no need to revise a belief if it's not false.

You really are incapable of English comprehension. This is not about symbols - this is about ontological conception.

"US" conceptualises an ontology with one entity.
"Me and you" conceptualises an ontology with two entities.

Surely you are not trying to convince us that 1 and 2 are symbols for the same thing?

It's entirely a language issue. "Us" and "Me and you" are merely two different expressions of one and the same portion of reality.

"1" and "2" are not symbols that mean the same thing but "1 pie" and "2 halves of a pie" are. That's what's happening here. "Us" would be "1 whole" and "Me and you" would be "2 halves of a whole". Your mistake lies in ignoring the thing that is known under the name "unit". Another way to put it is that "Us" would be "1 thing" and "Me and you" would be "2 things" with the word "thing" meaning one thing in the first sentence and another in the second. In fact, the first thing is composed of two instances of the second thing.

If it's not up to decide what's inside any given part of reality; why then did you not listen when reality (me!) told you that there are no beliefs in the part that is my head?

Because what you say is not necessarily true. And when it comes to this particular claim of yours, namely, that you have no beliefs, it's absolutely false.

Some people lie about themselves, some have a false perception of themselves. And some people can see through all of it.

Nobody likes conversing with evangelists - whether they are prosletysing their religion; or their brand of logic. Same thing really.

True. As an example, noone really likes conversing with you.

[Skepdick]

...

Is it just me or did you conveniently side-step the entire issue with your house of cards?

Naturally, because there is NO justification required for asserting that I am fucking thirsty!

There actually is. You have to be justified in everything you believe and do.

If everything you believe has to be justified then justify the belief that everything you believe has to be justified.

I'll grab some popcorn for the upcoming backpedaling...

[Magnus Anderson]

Is it just me or did you conveniently side-step the entire issue with your house of cards?

It's just you.

If everything you believe has to be justified then justify the belief that everything you believe has to be justified.

Irrelevant. I am not going to play your game where you mindlessly jump from one topic to another.

To remind you . . .

1) The law of excluded middle states that "For every proposition, either that proposition must be true or its negation".

2) What they mean by "proposition" is precisely what I mean by "belief" (in the possible / potential sense i.e. no commitment required.) Basically, it is a non-linguistic entity, an idea, that some portion of reality is such and such. It consists of two components: the referred portion of reality (subject) and the idea of what's inside that portion of reality (predicate.) If an idea lacks one or both of those components, it is NOT a proposition / belief.

3) In the case of "This sentence is false", the referred portion of reality is missing. You argued that it refers to "itself". And albeit the sentence itself exists -- the word "sentence" being a linguistic entity denoting a sequence of words with or without any meaning / idea attach to it -- that sentence actually talks about its truth value. The truth value of a sentence is the truth value of the attached belief. If no belief is attached to a sentence, then the sentence has no truth value. And since the attached idea is lacking a reference to a portion of reality, the attached idea is NOT a belief. Hence, the sentence has NO truth value. As such, the sentence is NOT a belief / proposition. As such, it is NOT the subject of the law of excluded middle (in the same exact way that dogs aren't subject to it.) In other words, you are MISUNDERSTANDING the law of excluded middle (as you do pretty much everything else.)

You also tried pointlessly arguing against my claim that "Only beliefs have truth value". I tried showing you that you misunderstood that statement -- not merely that you understood in a different way -- and that it's super important for you to understand it (since your goal was to criticize it, prove it false, etc.) You then went on talking about how you weren't trying to prove it false but merely show that it's incomplete. That's bullshit, of course. If there is a single non-belief that is true, it means there are non-beliefs that have truth value. If there are non-beliefs that have truth value, it means that my statement "Only beliefs have truth value" is false because it implies that there are no non-beliefs that have truth value.

You also talked about "Us" and "Me and you" and you even attempted returning to square circles. And now you want to talk about justification (merely because I said that knowledge is an instance of belief and briefly mentioned JTB.)

[Skepdick]

Is it just me or did you conveniently side-step the entire issue with your house of cards?

It's just you.

Phew! For a second I thought you intentionally ignored the issue. I am sure you'll rectify your ommission right away then?

If everything you believe has to be justified then justify the belief that everything you believe has to be justified.

Irrelevant. I am not going to play your game where you mindlessly jump from one topic to another.

You say it's irrelevant; I say it's relevant. I'll do us both a favour and just agree with you. The topic is indeed irrelevant.

Now, would you kindly address the irrelevant topic? Or we could just move onto more relevant matters.

To remind you . . .

1) The law of excluded middle states that "For every proposition, either that proposition must be true or its negation".

2) What they mean by "proposition" is precisely what I mean by "belief" (in the possible / potential sense i.e. no commitment required.) Basically, it is a non-linguistic entity, an idea, that some portion of reality is such and such. It consists of two components: the referred portion of reality (subject) and the idea of what's inside that portion of reality (predicate.) If an idea lacks one or both of those components, it is NOT a proposition / belief.

3) In the case of "This sentence is false", the referred portion of reality is missing. You argued that it refers to "itself". And albeit the sentence itself exists -- the word "sentence" being a linguistic entity denoting a sequence of words with or without any meaning / idea attach to it -- that sentence actually talks about its truth value. The truth value of a sentence is the truth value of the attached belief. If no belief is attached to a sentence, then the sentence has no truth value. And since the attached idea is lacking a reference to a portion of reality, the attached idea is NOT a belief. Hence, the sentence has NO truth value. As such, the sentence is NOT a belief / proposition. As such, it is NOT the subject of the law of excluded middle (in the same exact way that dogs aren't subject to it.) In other words, you are MISUNDERSTANDING the law of excluded middle (as you do pretty much everything else.)

Given your reminder it seems to me that either everything you believe has to be justified; or NOT everything you believe has to be justified.

Which one is true?

[Magnus Anderson]

You have to prove that "This sentence is false" has an idea attached to it that has a reference to a portion of reality.

Everything else is a distraction. You've been playing the game of distraction for too long to let it continue.

[Skepdick]

You have to prove that "This sentence is false" has an idea attached to it that has a reference to a portion of reality.

Why? You are the one who insists beliefs need justification - not me.

Prove that I have to prove it.

Everything else is a distraction. You've been playing the game of distraction for too long to let it continue.

You mean like you are trying to distract everyone by pretending that I have adhere to your rules, but you don't?

If you want me to play your game - lead the way. Show me how to play it.