Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:12 am
I am asking for definitions. For the sake of brevity:

Define what "want" is.
For the sake of brevity I don't have to define them because you already understand their meaning.

So I ask again: Why do you want me to define them?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:28 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:12 am
I am asking for definitions. For the sake of brevity:

Define what "want" is.
For the sake of brevity I don't have to define them because you already understand their meaning.

So I ask again: Why do you want me to define them?
Because you are projecting that you think I understand what you mean...as a matter of fact you are assuming it (first law of trillema)...I really don't understand what you are getting at considering all wants project to further wants and one ends up in a regressive spiral.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:28 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:12 am
I am asking for definitions. For the sake of brevity:

Define what "want" is.
For the sake of brevity I don't have to define them because you already understand their meaning.

So I ask again: Why do you want me to define them?
Because you are projecting that you think I understand what you mean...as a matter of fact you are assuming it (first law of trillema)...I really don't understand what you are getting at considering all wants project to further wants and one ends up in a regressive spiral.
Obviously, and you admit to this, you just make up stuff...like a salesman pushing a product noone is interested nor understands why they need it.

seeds
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by seeds » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:01 am

_______

Great.....two insufferable windbags clapping their blubber together like a couple of bull elephant seals during mating season. :lol:

Just kidding, carry on. :P
_______

Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 am
Obviously, and you admit to this, you just make up stuff...like a salesman pushing a product noone is interested nor understands why they need it.
Except I am good at market research. And I observe that:

1. You are struggling with self-expression.
2. You are trying to define an axiomatic system (logic)

So I am offering you a CONSTRUCTIVE tool. So that you too can "make up" stuff.
But at least the stuff you "make up" will be communicable to other people. And it might even be useful.

Made up things that are useful are called inventions.

Logic is a human invention. To us humans - It's fucking useful. I am literally trying to give you a LEGO set for logic.
And it's not exactly a sale because you aren't paying me anything for it...
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:10 am, edited 3 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:07 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:01 am
_______

Great.....two insufferable windbags clapping their blubber together like a couple of bull elephant seals during mating season. :lol:

Just kidding, carry on. :P
_______
I count a third.

seeds
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by seeds » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:13 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:07 am
seeds wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:01 am
_______

Great.....two insufferable windbags clapping their blubber together like a couple of bull elephant seals during mating season. :lol:

Just kidding, carry on. :P
_______
I count a third.
Touché (guilty as charged). :D
_______

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:28 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 am
Obviously, and you admit to this, you just make up stuff...like a salesman pushing a product noone is interested nor understands why they need it.
Except I am good at market research. And I observe that:

1. You are struggling with self-expression.
2. You are trying to define an axiomatic system (logic)

So I am offering you a CONSTRUCTIVE tool. So that you too can "make up" stuff.
But at least the stuff you "make up" will be communicable to other people. And it might even be useful.

Made up things that are useful are called inventions.

Logic is a human invention. To us humans - It's fucking useful. I am literally trying to give you a LEGO set for logic.
And it's not exactly a sale because you aren't paying me anything for it...
To be picky I think he has read some C.S.Peirce and he is trying to create a semiotic of some type. Just my tuppence.

Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:27 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:28 am
To be picky I think he has read some C.S.Peirce and he is trying to create a semiotic of some type. Just my tuppence.
I think I pointed him in the way of semiotics, k-adic theory, relation theory, combinatorics and all the generalized Mathematical theories that followed from Pierce at some point. He is committed to amusing himself with the "Prime Triad' it seems.

He is observing the structures of his own mind and trying to narrate them not realizing others have done exactly the same thing.
That's what logic is. Successfully-expressed metaphysics.

Let him re-invent the wheel, I guess - he's still busy convincing himself that he is different to everyone else. An individual!
One day when it all clicks he will come around...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 am
Obviously, and you admit to this, you just make up stuff...like a salesman pushing a product noone is interested nor understands why they need it.
Except I am good at market research. And I observe that:

1. You are struggling with self-expression.

False, Certain people will understand, other will not, other's will not care. You study market research, you know these are the boundaries.

Second if you look at several of the threads (language as geometric, golden rule stemming from geometry, etc.) people do grasp it.



2. You are trying to define an axiomatic system (logic)


I would not say that "trying to define" is really an issue considering "everything changes" is rooted in the axiom itself.

"One axiom projecting to another axiom"
"One axiom as projecting away from its origins, in effect is and extension of it; hence both axioms are connected"
"All axioms cycle through eachother to maintain eachother"
"All axioms as maintaining eachother simultaneously result in further axioms"
"All axioms as original exist as extensions of all other axioms".
"All axioms are nothing in themselves".
"These axioms exist through eachother, as eachother, and are open to variation; this is axiomatic as this is an original, progressively defined, and self-referential statement"

That is the thing, these statements are both logical, define the nature of the axiom, and the statements reference eachother.





So I am offering you a CONSTRUCTIVE tool. So that you too can "make up" stuff.
That is the difference between me and you...I am after the truth, not just making up stuff. Everything you built will one day pass...program that out of the equation.


But at least the stuff you "make up" will be communicable to other people. And it might even be useful.


You mean useful like sending a picture of a curve to a stranger on the other side of the world...I worked in sales. The successful are those that not only lie but push a product people do not even need. Those who are honest, like I was, make what they need...no more and no less.



Made up things that are useful are called inventions.

You keep throwing that word "useful" around like it means something....please explain what it is because what you claim as useful are equivalent to luxuries.


Logic is a human invention. To us humans - It's fucking useful. I am literally trying to give you a LEGO set for logic.
And it's not exactly a sale because you aren't paying me anything for it...


So what you are saying is that one axiom (a point) projecting to another axiom (a point), which is the foundation of logic (ie "relation") is made up by people? Please explain the process to me since you know so much.



Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
False, Certain people will understand, other will not, other's will not care. You study market research, you know these are the boundaries.
So far the number of people who understand is 1. You.
I am trying to increase that number to 2. You and me.

You aren't making it easy.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
Second if you look at several of the threads (language as geometric, golden rule stemming from geometry, etc.) people do grasp it.
The only way to confirm that's the case is to get them to apply it in practice then compare notes.

If I put you in separate rooms, and one of you determines that 1 circle-dot 5 = circledot 7
And the other one determines that 1 cirle-dot 5 = circledot 51

Then most certainly one of you doesn''t get it!
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
That is the difference between me and you...I am after the truth, not just making up stuff. Everything you built will one day pass...program that out of the equation.
Is that so?

Once you find The Truth you are going to have to show it to other people.

You can't even communicate your thoughts now. You think you are going to communicate The Truth?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:05 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
False, Certain people will understand, other will not, other's will not care. You study market research, you know these are the boundaries.
So far the number of people who understand is 1. You.
I am trying to increase that number to 2. You and me.

You aren't making it easy.


False, other people understand but what you don't understand is what it means to understand; hence the point below:



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
Second if you look at several of the threads (language as geometric, golden rule stemming from geometry, etc.) people do grasp it.
The only way to confirm that's the case is to get them to apply it in practice then compare notes.


Actually to apply it in practice is just to repeat it. You claim to understand lambda because you repeat it, but if you really look at the axioms which compose it...you don't. You can repeat the axioms, create frameworks using the axioms, but when it comes to justifying the axioms you cannot without using lambda as proof...and it ends in a cycle.

I prefer just to get to the point and say things exist through cycles, including "morality" itself, which gives perspective to certain situations; hence forms them.

For example you claim everything is subject to entropy and assymmetry...but:

1) this is just you cycling back to the childhood you argued, which was assymetric and entropic; hence
2) your sense of abandonment by society resulted in your libertine stance where you replicated what was projected onto you.
3) which necessitates you take an assymetric (divergent) stance by "creating your own reality"
4) to deal with the quality of "entropy" you experienced in your childhood
5) which you seek to project back to society; thus causing a further cycle of entropy which you observed under the theory of "free will" which in itself observes a state of dissolution in society structure conducive to the entropy you percieved you suffered from.
6) etc. "You" are subject to the same cycles you argue against; hence your "individuality" was formed by laws beyond your control.





If I put you in separate rooms, and one of you determines that 1 circle-dot 5 = circledot 7
And the other one determines that 1 cirle-dot 5 = circledot 51

Then most certainly one of you doesn''t get it!


What an interesting test, please explain to me why circle-dot= x ?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
That is the difference between me and you...I am after the truth, not just making up stuff. Everything you built will one day pass...program that out of the equation.
Is that so?

Once you find The Truth you are going to have to show it to other people.

You can't even communicate your thoughts now. You think you are going to communicate The Truth?


Is that so because what I see is a man trying to break free of the cycles which formed him and all he is doing is just repeating them in some other variation.



User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:12 pm

seeds wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:01 am
_______

Great.....two insufferable windbags clapping their blubber together like a couple of bull elephant seals during mating season. :lol:

Just kidding, carry on. :P
_______
Wow, what a windbag thing to say.

Just kidding...

Logik
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:05 pm
False, other people understand but what you don't understand is what it means to understand; hence the point below.
For somebody who doesn't understand I sure gave you testable/falsifiable procedure to determine whether any two people 'understand' each other...
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
Actually to apply it in practice is just to repeat it.
That's telling you can apply it. I want you to show me that you can apply it.

Calculate something.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
What an interesting test, please explain to me why circle-dot= x ?
I don't have to understand what it means. If two people, using the same framework working in separate rooms produce different results - they don't understand each other.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:32 pm
Is that so because what I see is a man trying to break free of the cycles which formed him and all he is doing is just repeating them in some other variation.
Let me know when you escape time. In fact. There will be a party for time-travelers at my desk 15 minutes in the past.

Change my comment.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Debate Challenge to Logick. Subject: The Nature of Reality. Reward: Sanity. Loss: Sanity.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:13 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:28 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:54 am
Obviously, and you admit to this, you just make up stuff...like a salesman pushing a product noone is interested nor understands why they need it.
Except I am good at market research. And I observe that:

1. You are struggling with self-expression.
2. You are trying to define an axiomatic system (logic)

So I am offering you a CONSTRUCTIVE tool. So that you too can "make up" stuff.
But at least the stuff you "make up" will be communicable to other people. And it might even be useful.

Made up things that are useful are called inventions.

Logic is a human invention. To us humans - It's fucking useful. I am literally trying to give you a LEGO set for logic.
And it's not exactly a sale because you aren't paying me anything for it...
To be picky I think he has read some C.S.Peirce and he is trying to create a semiotic of some type. Just my tuppence.
False, I barely read Peirce, my time has not permitted me yet.

False as to creating a semiotic, I am just observing certain universal principles exist and the current logical model is faulty on its own terms (ie "on its own terms").

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests