Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[juan]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 03:43:03 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:

> > 	You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't
> > much to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
> > 	party.
> 
> I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires
> fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed
> upon?

	I made that clear two posts ago. That's what the O'Brien
	quote meant. So, you didn't get it after all.


	Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not
	to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms
	couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
	be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.



 
> And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your
> position.

	In this case it is. Not that I  care too much, except to point
	out that  I don't misrepresent what you say, I rather
	'streamline' it =)

	Your attempt at concisely explaining my position fails though =)



> You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions
> because they were not consistent. 


	Are you finally acknolwedging that they are not consistent? =)

	(I dismiss some of your opinions for other reasons too)



> This is little different than a
> religious person dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege."
> They are incompatible with your system of thought. So, in this way,
> you quite do put logic on a pedestal.

	Again you are using a wrong analogy. Furthermore, to pretend
	that 'religious' bullshit is equivalent to reasoned argument
	is, I suppose, nothing but a cheap provocation =) 

 
> If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. 

	No. If it isn't 'holy' then it is 'unholy' 'demoniacal' 'arab'
	'mexican' 'antisemite' or whatever terms the crazies use. It's
	all nonsense anyway.


	If it isn't logical, then it is wrong, right.

	The two scenarios are rather unrelated though. Except if you
	want to use the first as wrong analogy for the second? What
	point would you be making apart from...teasing me?


> That is an accurate
> summation of your position, 

	Not at all. It's just trolling. 


> and it is clear that the figurative
> speech of "putting logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly.


	OK. 


> 
> > 	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 didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they
> killed the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is
> true, and if I had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction.
> 
> > 	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.
> 
> You accept what, exactly?
> 
> I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to
> consistent statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that
> there are certain truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent
> pairs of statements. 


	Nonsense =)


> And yes, within the context of our discussion, I
> have favored inconsistency as a balance to your focus on minutia,
> mere points of debate, and reliance on ideological principles which I
> obviously do not hold, and which therefore have nothing to do with
> the actual ideas that you started asking me questions about.
> 
> The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in
> simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear
> proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke.

	Lol! You are using 'logical' as a very coloquial synonym
	 for self-interest.  It has nothing to do with actual logic. 

	"It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke" 

	Meaningless hand waving. It MAY be convenient for the iranian
	governent to do so, or it MAY GET THEM ATTACKED SOONER. So
	there's nothing necessarily 'logical' about that course of
	action.

	Also, there isn't any incosistency in both government doing the
	same thing  - or different things, or whatever. 

	But again, you are using a different meaning for 'logical' here
	than the one implied in the rest of the discussion.
	Equivocation much.
	


> 
> Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual
> situation. What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the
> inconsistency.

	Nonsense unpackaged above. And this is just a waste of time
	again. Too much effor on my part to disentangle your cheap
	tricks. 


> 
> It's also observable in more complex situations:  A person may
> simultaneously "love" and "hate" another.

	Your quota is filled.




> 
> The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying
> tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are
> REAL contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with
> it, too:
> 
> A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and
> accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will,
> nevertheless see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement
> is an inherently subjective activity.
> 
> Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the
> barest components of physical reality.
> 
> The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me,
> vital for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a
> discipline, in my understanding.
> 
> >
> > 	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 =)
> 
> Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself
> into any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not
> trying to save you from the evils of classical thought,


	Why, thank you. Yet all the stuff you write seems to suggest
	the exact opposite. 




> nor classical
> liberalism. I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm
> not interested in converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because
> I'm sure I wouldn't want you in my circles. 


	What circles are those? Full of people like you? I'm hardly
	likely to want to join them, you'd realize...if you were
	slightly logical. 



> I'm just giving my
> perspective, and explaining what you continually misrepresent and
> attack.
> 
> And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't
> make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An
> analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made
> direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, 

	OK. You suggested that your illogical nonsense is not illogical
	because if it were considered part of an
	'alternative' (illogical) logic, it would be logic. 



> as
> I've described. There are different branches of geometry, as I
> described. There are theorems which prove facts about the limits of
> logic, which while stated informally, are in fact true.
> 
> If you're out of your depth, 


	No I'm not. I'm just not interested in getting entagled in more
	snobbish nonsense. 


> that's quite alright. You said before
> you're not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried
> to show some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the
> playful sort either. 


	No. I'm not an hypocrite and I will gladly insult you openly,
	instead of being 'playful'.


> So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to
> convey these ideas to you, 

	Don't worry. I know exactly what you are saying just like I
	know why it's nonsense. 

	Curved geometry? Fine. It just so happens that curves can be
	described in 'linear', simpler terms. So 'linear' geometry
	takes precedence. Exactly like 'classical' logic does. You need
	'classical' logic to formulate your 'fuzzy' logic.



> except to say -- rather than merely
> "accepting" logic, perhaps you really ought to consider studying it.


	That coming from the guy who accused me of earning more than
	32k per year(something now I figure he does), because I was
	typing on a cell phone (which I  wasn't) =) 




> 
> 
>