I vehemently disagree. As it stands now very effective propaganda could unite 70% of the
population of a country in using nuclear weapons to right a misconstrued wrong.
This could cause nuclear Winter that starves 99% of the population to death and murders
the remaining 1% by some of the 99% just trying to get some food.
Can you compute, without unjustified axioms, why that is a bad thing?
We must have a set of axioms to give meaning to otherwise purely meaningless finite strings.
{cats are animals} is an axiom of English. We can encode the sum total of human knowledge
in these axioms and their relations to other axioms. To work correctly thus enabling a
consistently correct Truth predicate to be defined it must work the same way as Prolog.
True means has been proved in the system, false means the negation has been proved
in the system.
The Liar Paradox and every expression having pathological self-reference is rejected
by the system as not a truth bearer.
We can still have axioms and result in meaninglessness consider the act of making an axiom is to make something which is relative thus always true and false (paradoxical) when compared to the totality of contexts.
From another standpoint the system must be accepted as axiomatical by the observer, not the computer as accepting is a choice and choice is not fully understood, and in these respects we are left with a thing that is not computable (the accepting of the axiom).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:30 pm
We can still have axioms and result in meaninglessness consider the act of making an axiom is to make something which is relative thus always true and false (paradoxical) when compared to the totality of contexts.
Sure maybe baby kittens really are some kind of ten story office building in some psychotic context.
I say that {baby kittens} <are not> {ten story office buildings} within the axiomatic correct model
of the world.
Can you compute objectivity without first defining it through uncomputable means? Can computation result in a dictionary? Can you compute choice when all other variables are equal?
That seems to be asking can you run a computer program that no one ever wrote and thus does not yet exist?
And you would require a potential computer program beyond that one, and beyond that one....so on to infinity. This never ending potential always requires the program as being dependent on something which is not a program until the new program emerges.
There is only a finite set of general abstract knowledge of the world.
LLM's can self-populate in a feasible amount of time.
The CYC project spent 700 man-years just to populate human common sense.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:25 pm
Unless and until we make True(L, x) computable so that there is an objective way
to discern dangerous lies from Truth humanity remains at great an increasing risk.
But being able to discern dangerous lies FROM truth is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do ALREADY.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:25 pm
This is the reason why we need to refute Tarski Undefinability and its analogs
(isomorphisms) such as Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:25 pm
Unless and until we make True(L, x) computable so that there is an objective way
to discern dangerous lies from Truth humanity remains at great an increasing risk.
But being able to discern dangerous lies FROM truth is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do ALREADY.
If that was true then 40% of the electorate would never have believed the 2020 election fraud lies.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:25 pm
Unless and until we make True(L, x) computable so that there is an objective way
to discern dangerous lies from Truth humanity remains at great an increasing risk.
But being able to discern dangerous lies FROM truth is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do ALREADY.
If that was true then 40% of the electorate would never have believed the 2020 election fraud lies.
But just because some 'thing' may well be a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do it does NOT then necessarily follow that EVERY one NOR even ANY one will do 'it', NOR ANY percentage in between.
For example living in peace and in harmony with one "another" ALWAYS is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do, BUT, in the days when this is being written, it is an OBVIOUS Fact that 'this' is NOT YET being DONE.
But being able to discern dangerous lies FROM truth is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do ALREADY.
If that was true then 40% of the electorate would never have believed the 2020 election fraud lies.
But just because some 'thing' may well be a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do it does NOT then necessarily follow that EVERY one NOR even ANY one will do 'it', NOR ANY percentage in between.
For example living in peace and in harmony with one "another" ALWAYS is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do, BUT, in the days when this is being written, it is an OBVIOUS Fact that 'this' is NOT YET being DONE.
Proving that the {VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY} is simply incorrect.
If that was true then 40% of the electorate would never have believed the 2020 election fraud lies.
But just because some 'thing' may well be a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do it does NOT then necessarily follow that EVERY one NOR even ANY one will do 'it', NOR ANY percentage in between.
For example living in peace and in harmony with one "another" ALWAYS is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do, BUT, in the days when this is being written, it is an OBVIOUS Fact that 'this' is NOT YET being DONE.
Proving that the {VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY} is simply incorrect.
Ah, so to you if some thing is not yet being done then it MUST BE HARD and COMPLEX.
Here we can CLEARLY SEE the "justifications" these people would USE, to "themselves“ ONLY, for NIT DOING what is OBVIOUSLY Right and GOOD.
But just because some 'thing' may well be a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do it does NOT then necessarily follow that EVERY one NOR even ANY one will do 'it', NOR ANY percentage in between.
For example living in peace and in harmony with one "another" ALWAYS is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do, BUT, in the days when this is being written, it is an OBVIOUS Fact that 'this' is NOT YET being DONE.
Proving that the {VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY} is simply incorrect.
Ah, so to you if some thing is not yet being done then it MUST BE HARD and COMPLEX.
Here we can CLEARLY SEE the "justifications" these people would USE, to "themselves“ ONLY, for NIT DOING what is OBVIOUSLY Right and GOOD.
Actually they are simply gullible fools that act like a herd of sheep because of groupthink. They make the huge mistake of believing that there was election fraud entirely on the basis that other people say that they believe it too. Republican congress simply knowingly lies about this.
True or truth is experience, very personal to the biology experiencing it, that is probably why it is incomputable. It is a sensory evaluation, that the conscious subject then applies to the outside world. In other words, truth is the physical reaction of an organism, and is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Truth could vary with differing biologizes or different states of biology, but if biology was to be defective in some way; the truth of the experience would true to the biology having the experience, for experience is knowledge, meaning, and judgment as process.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:16 pm
True or truth is experience, very personal to the biology experiencing it, that is probably why it is incomputable. It is a sensory evaluation, that the conscious subject then applies to the outside world. In other words, truth is the physical reaction of an organism, and is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Truth could vary with differing biologizes or different states of biology, but if biology was to be defective in some way; the truth of the experience would true to the biology having the experience, for experience is knowledge, meaning, and judgment as process.
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. You are not referring to analytical
truth that is verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its meaning.
It suggest whatever semantics or complications are introduced it must come down to the conscious subjects experience, you are correct in thinking this is not abstract, this is basic biological reality.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:03 pm
Enlighten me by pointing out my faulty reasoning.
It suggest whatever semantics or complications are introduced it must come down to the conscious subjects experience, you are correct in thinking this is not abstract, this is basic biological reality.
I am trying to design the basis of a formal computational system that
can take on each end every social media post that is spreading
counter-factual disinformation and argue against these dangerous
lies before they can have any effect.
Since the survival of the species depends on the success of this
your naysaying is unhelpful.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:03 pm
Enlighten me by pointing out my faulty reasoning.
It suggest whatever semantics or complications are introduced it must come down to the conscious subjects experience, you are correct in thinking this is not abstract, this is basic biological reality.
I am trying to design the basis of a formal computational system that
can take on each end every social media post that is spreading
counter-factual disinformation and argue against these dangerous
lies before they can have any effect.
Since the survival of the species depends on the success of this
your naysaying is unhelpful.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:11 pm
Actually they are simply gullible fools that act like a herd of sheep because of groupthink. They make the huge mistake of believing that there was election fraud entirely on the basis that other people say that they believe it too.