Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[juan]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:29:23 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:

> >
> > 	You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers,
> > 	charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams
> > 	behind empty, ambiguous words.
> >
> > 	Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding'
> > 	of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst
> > totalitarian.
> 
> I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from. 


	You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much
	to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
	party. 


	Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with
	discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not
	actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the
	legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who
	'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend.


	

> I always
> have understood your point. I've discussed this sort of thing, at
> length, with many people who put logic on a pedestal. I don't believe
> you've made an effort to understand my point, however.


	So you don't really understand the bigger point. I don't put
	logic on a pedestal. That's just figurative language on your
	part, it's 'misrepresentation' of my position  and ultimately
	an absurdity. 

	Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an
	arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is
	'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't.

	So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from
	maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can
	figure the rest =)


	



> 
> There is a danger in being too focused on logic and reason. It
> unnecessarily constrains one's thoughts. Consider the very word -
> RATIONAL. As in, rational numbers - numbers expressible as ratios.
> That is how the Pythagoreans thought of numbers. They had no concept
> at all of an "irrational" number - a number not expressible as ratios.
> 
> So, to say to them that sqrt(2) is not expressible as a ratio of two
> integers was UNTHINKABLE. They had no framework for the concept within
> their "logic." They lacked the IMAGINATION to set aside their quite
> literally rational view of arithmetic and to simply THINK, with as few
> rules guiding that process as they could manage.
> 
> And that is an example regarding something a simple as the concept of
> quantity. How much more should we be suspicious of such failures of
> imagination when dealing with complex concepts?
> 
> As far as totalitarianism goes, I'm not sure what an example from
> fiction is necessarily supposed to prove, but I can counter with
> another: legend has it that Hippasus was murdered for proving that
> root 2 is irrational. A warning for taking systems of thought,
> ideologies, logics and so on, too seriously.
> 
> But there is a deeper matter, here. When you ask for something to be
> "logical" what, exactly, do you mean? Logical according to what?
> 
> A triangle has interior angles which sum to 180 degrees, says Euclid.
> Lobachevsky can prove all triangles have more than 180 degrees. Both
> are correct, given their assumptions. Both work in the real world.
> Which, then, meets your criteria of "logical" or "rational"? Which do
> we use?
> 
> There is classical, "Aristotelian" logic. But there are parametric
> logics where induction and deduction are special cases of
> consequence. There are fuzzy logics where truth and falsehood are not
> 1 and 0's but take on a range of values .. formalized "grey area"
> thinking, essentially.  More importantly, there are paraconsistent
> logics - logics which specifically deal with contradiction in
> definable, inconsistency-tolerant ways.
> 
> So what type of logic should we use? And why? You want to use one
> type of reasoning, as most people do, usually Aristotelian; but there
> is absolutely no basis for this other than ignorance of the others -
> despite the fact that the others are often times the better tools for
> the job. That is why they were invented.
> 
> I mentioned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at one point. It says,
> informally, that in any logical system with a finite number of
> assumptions, one cannot have consistency, and the ability to prove all
> true statements.
> If you value consistency as the ideal, you put truth at second place.
> This is the choice of the mathematician. To have access to all truths
> within such a system, you need either an infinite mind to hold
> infinite axioms, or tolerance for inconsistency. This is the path of
> the philosopher.
> 
> Some would suggest that complete tolerance for all inconsistencies and
> having an infinite mind are quite the same thing. Hence, the F.S.
> Fitzgerald quote.
> 
> My point is that "rational" and "logical" only make sense according to
> some assumptions, according to a frame of reference. And that frame of
> reference needs to be agreed upon for use in order to have any
> utility in a discussion.
> 
> You mentioned that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 before. True enough, at least
> not that I know of, but I countered that 7+10 does equal five.
> 
> And it does, according to a different frame of reference. That frame
> of reference being the face of a clock. Circular.
> 
> You choose to only think linearly. I choose to think according to any
> rules I choose, when I choose them, for the purposes of getting to the
> goal that I decide is worth pursuing.
> 
> I'm free of thought that way.
>