The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

[Logik]

Actually the penguin is defined relative to the nature of flying, in these respects it maintains a neutral nature. An inference is made. From this it may be deduced the penguin in neutral in regards to flying.

"No penguin eats mammals" is a negative inference. From this it may be deduced what the penguin is not.

Inference and deduction result in positive, negative and neutral terms.

Sure. Negative statements are good grounding for epistemology.

It's what epistemology is.

That is a positive statement then; hence we are left with all "meaning" as simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as observed in the prime directives.

And if that's true then the prime directives are a subset of computation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sure. Negative statements are good grounding for epistemology.

It's what epistemology is.

That is a positive statement then; hence we are left with all "meaning" as simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as observed in the prime directives.

And if that's true then the prime directives are a subset of computation.

False; All compution is an assumed axiom, it is formless.

True; the definition of compution as formless, in its seperation to other axioms takes on form.

True and false; Compution is formless on its own terms, it is "form" through other axioms. It does not exist on its own terms.

[Logik]

False; All compution is an assumed axiom, it is formless.

Computation is not an axiom.

It's a process. Inputs and outputs.

It's not formless - conceptually or physically.

[Speakpigeon]

You can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.

I don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.

Intuition is good for survival, but you cannot understand the workings of the universe for instance, using intuition. You cannot grasp advanced science with intuition. You have to have abstract thought of a very high quality of course using purely logical reasoning - complex logic.
Intuition is only simple logic, it cannot be used for advanced mathematics, unless you are a math genius.

I don't think there is any valid conclusion we could understand that could not be known literally through an intuition. I myself had a logical intuition once that I still can't explain today. So, Intuition 1 - Thought 0.
Einstein arrived at the main ideas behind Special Relativity and General Relativity using his intuition. Many mathematicians have explained how intuition was essential in finding the proof of a theorem. We all do the same, at our level, in the course of our lives. You are opposing intuition and thought, as if the two didn't interact and communicate. They do, extensively.
EB

[Logik]

Intuition is good for survival, but you cannot understand the workings of the universe for instance, using intuition. You cannot grasp advanced science with intuition. You have to have abstract thought of a very high quality of course using purely logical reasoning - complex logic.

Intuition is only simple logic, it cannot be used for advanced mathematics, unless you are a math genius.

From https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-ra ... 2e96dd4d1a

Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later.

you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science.

[philosopher]

Intuition is good for survival, but you cannot understand the workings of the universe for instance, using intuition. You cannot grasp advanced science with intuition. You have to have abstract thought of a very high quality of course using purely logical reasoning - complex logic.

Intuition is only simple logic, it cannot be used for advanced mathematics, unless you are a math genius.

From https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-ra ... 2e96dd4d1a

Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later.

you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science.

In the near (or far) future, science will be needed for our future survival. When the sun dies, we'll need science to survive.

[Logik]

In the near (or far) future, science will be needed for our future survival. When the sun dies, we'll need science to survive.

Sure. We learned that from the dinosaurs.

If you don't become inter-planetary, you (eventually) die oh this planet.

[philosopher]

In the near (or far) future, science will be needed for our future survival. When the sun dies, we'll need science to survive.

Sure. We learned that from the dinosaurs.

If you don't become inter-planetary, you (eventually) die oh this planet.

When speaking of "we" or "us", I refer to the human race. Not individuals.

[Logik]

When speaking of "we" or "us", I refer to the human race. Not individuals.

The human race is made up of individuals.

[commonsense]

Absolutely no one will persuade Eodnhoj7 that his claims are false, not because of obstinacy or lunacy on his part, but because Hnoj is making assertions based on intuition, a form of logic, according to him.

But intuitive logic is an oxymoron, as intuition consists of making swift conclusions without a dependence on logic. As such, while there have been numerous sound arguments that demonstrate the ludicrousness of Nhoj’s statements, these arguments are falling on deaf ears.

[Speakpigeon]

I don't care what you say because words are made up of letters.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

But intuitive logic is an oxymoron, as intuition consists of making swift conclusions without a dependence on logic.

enthymeme
n. Logic A syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly.

An enthymeme is a cryptic syllogism that is nonetheless easily understood by nearly all of us without even that we need to think to understand the meaning. This shows even uneducated people understand syllogisms intuitively. Intuition = logic.
What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?
How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

False; All compution is an assumed axiom, it is formless.

Computation is not an axiom.

It's a process. Inputs and outputs.

It's not formless - conceptually or physically.

Actually it is just assumed.

Then progressively defined into input and output which progress to further definition infinitely.

With input and output being defined circulary both by what they are not (input is not output and output is not input) and generally because any definition results in a simple "because" that goes back to just assumption.

You just assume computation but use the munchauseen trillema without intention. Any "creativity" you claim is an individual "you" process is just a process of regressive spiraling you did not create.

[commonsense]

Intuition = logic.

Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W.

What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?

Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic.

How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?

Logic is the opposite of intuition. See M&W.

[Logik]

Intuition = logic.

Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W.

What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?

Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic.

How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?

Logic is the opposite of intuition. See M&W.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof