Banno

Goats eat everything; therefore there is something that eats everything. therefore It is possible that something eats everything. So you have a proof ...

This is gobbledygook. But I would not be surprised were you unable to see that.

Yep. The argument seems to be that we need a place for concepts, hence the I-language. So it's based on a misguided spacial notion of "concepts".

Nice example of motte-and-bailey fallacy.

Goes well on eggs, too.

Pffft. Postulent. Nice. Brinjal pickle?

Yep. But "the demiurge of all possible worlds" might need some work...

If you think Pi and infinity are the same number, then you're view is pretty much fucked. So I'll leave you to it.

, Pi and infinity are two quite different numbers. Pi is not infinity.

Me? Never. The supposed issues that trouble you arise from your own lack of clarity.

Hmm. The we are now a long way from Canterbury.

As I said, it cannot be express with a finite number of digits in decimal notation. But that does not make it infinite. It is expressed exactly by htt...

If the definition is "a something a greater than which cannot be conceived", I'm not convinced. There's the obvious comparison of "A number a larger t...

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/50725fce8b20701f737a6ecc57aff4b8969107c4

You are far too casual with your terms. Pi is exactly the ratio of circumference to diameter. It is not infinite. It cannot be express with a finite n...

That sentence is nonsense. A circle is not Pi. Pi is not infinity.

That works. https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((~3~9~7xGx~2~8~7xGx)~1~9~7xGx)~5~8~7xGx

But that's just an instance of ?p?p, which is pretty clearly invalid. p??p. Invalid.

The counter model looks right. There might be something in the " suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible wor...

Hmm. Well, it seems you both go on forever.

You are not making any sense.

Yep. A shame it's invalid.

I don't see how that has anything to do with attempting to show that infinite linear arguments are actually circular, nor with your OP.

No it isn't. The methods used to calculate Pi are iterative, not circular.

That's apparent, and has been through the several threads you have started. Un's joke captures the point most succinctly: But from your response it se...

Of course we can know Pi: it's the ratio of circumference to diameter. I can draw a reasonable circle of any diameter up to a 20cm or so; after that t...

:lol: No.

Indeed. Nowhere have I accused you of new ageism, nor of "science bashing" The most I have "accused" (your word) you of is not being able to either fo...

Closed deductive loops are quite valid. They just do not get you very far - no further than where you started. Here, though, you seem to be claiming t...

Wolfram's conclusion is that "human language (and the patterns of thinking behind it) are somehow simpler and more “law like” in their structure than ...

So who got to the end of the article? Wolfram begins to be a bit more philosophical: Overreach, I think. But what do others make of this?

:meh:

See, I'm not making any of the claims you suggest. So I can't choose one. I'm just noting that you expresses some agreement with the phenomenological ...

This: Since this isn't getting anywhere, might best just leave it.

Well, yes. Hence the direct question to Chomsky. :meh:

Maybe not just you. It's a really good idea that missed it's audience. If it had one.

I played with it a few years back, and it seemed interesting. But it has had little impact, at least so far as I can see. Wondering why.

Might drop this question here, for a wider audience: What do folk make of it?

Seems to me bringing vague, muddled notions of objective and subjective into the discussion can only lead to it becoming vague and muddled.

Hmm. I don't think I moved the goal. You expresses some agreement with the phenomenological approach to defining consciousness. I have pointed out tha...

I don't think so. I don't think you noted the methodological point made earlier, that the issue of whether ChatGPT or your air conditioner are conscio...

, This muddled stuff about subject and object is, for my money, off-topic.

What?

I don't think you think your air conditioner has consciousness. But that looks inconsistent with your view that consciousness is an inner subjective e...

Kant's madness again. Your air conditioner has inner phenomenological experiences. Prove me wrong. By your own argument, you ought not turn it off.

:grin: You appeared to imply that the phenomenological approach would work, saying: Now you are agreeing with me that it doesn't. That'll do.

That's how a reductio works. It'd take no time at all to set up shutdown and boot sequences to do what you describe. Consider again the methodological...

...ooo I suspect the ideas therein are sitting quietly in the background, an un-noted stoa for various Green political movements and alternate economi...

Seems not? It looks like the sort of thing that should be useful, but isn't. And the reason it isn't is not obvious. At least not to me.

That works. Spent last night showing Girl how to use it to write essays for undergrad accounting courses. I characterise it as a bullshit generator, i...