TonesInDeepFreeze

You are lying that I "continue". Among thousands of posts, not more than a handful of times, I've botched attribution, and I've corrected it immediate...

I asked whether the sentence is true. Aside from the whether a sentence is part of "the world", obviously sentences are true or false when they refer ...

First, putting 'philosophers' in scare quotes is sophomoric. Not every instance of a sentence needs to be considered dependent on a particular speaker...

This sentence has five words. Not true?

There are formulations in which there is no speaker nor reference to "I' or things like that.

Such things as 'consistent', 'system', 'proof' are not "impenetrable". But sometimes more technical terminology needs to be mentioned - so that the in...

You arrogate to yourself what is "relevant" and what is the "question at hand". And you arrogate to yourself what level of technical detail should be ...

You are remarkable! You gave your definition. So I responded with what I consider to be better a explanation. You felt a need to add your notion of 's...

The question didn't ask about the "value" of the theorem. It asked "what exactly did it add to our body of knowledge?" It added exact mathematical kno...

The question was: As far as "exact", I responded: Those are exact and include the most salient implications of the theorem. Of course, a lot more came...

Your answer to the question includes a terribly misleading characterization of the theorem.

The crank says, "When an idea is said to be an "object" this is Platonism, by definition. Platonism is the ontology which holds that abstractions are ...

I should not have honored that garbage even by laughing at it. "senile" is juvenile. Worse, it's pernicious. One would think that such crude ageism wo...

Synesthesia does occur. And people have all kinds of false beliefs not derived by good inferences. But beyond those, people also have even more profou...

Of course they're possible. Whether in absurdist day dreaming, insanity, dreaming or in mystic state, one can have all kinds of irrational thoughts an...

You can post or not post as you please. And I'll do the same. I don't pretend to be a bully and I'm not one. And "senile" is to guffaw. Meanwhile, no ...

I don't require your courtesy. And I don't require you not to post so that you don't wear out my patience as you do. Anyway, in general, many people i...

I didn't mention you skills. I mentioned your knowledge. And you don't have to feel they that my view is needed nor do you have to request it for me t...

I'll try to combine your clauses into a defintion: Laws of thought are facts about your mind such that those facts are necessary for the operation of ...

Whatever is "subjacent", in those mentioned mental states, the laws of thought are broken in the sense of irrational thinking, believing or imagining....

. I thought they were two different definitions. But the second includes additional assertions beyond what I would have thought is a definition. Also,...

Actually, easier just to list a three book course, which I've done several times in this forum.

And a fact about minds is that they are often irrational.

I should list "prerequisites" for talking about logic.

The refuted person may not be disposed to accept that he's been refuted. But it doesn't follow that if a person points out that he's not been refuted ...

I'm happy to read any definition you'd restate.

A superb book that explains the theorem and discusses various reactions to it: 'Godel's Theorem' by Torkel Franzen.

You don't have to go into details merely to avoid egregiously mischaracterizing the subject. I stated the theorem in just one sentence, and using only...

You just completely ignore the point, that I've made twice, now a third time: In such mental states, people often break the laws of thought.

Yes, it doesn't follow. No one said otherwise. And yes, I was referring to your notion of the laws of thought. I'll say it again: One can break the la...

Then I overlooked that it did.

Are you saying the poster's sentence is not adequate English?

One instance that I can see might be regarded as nitpicking was when I said saying "B is true" was extraneous. But I mentioned it in a stylistic sense...

I don't know your point. Anyway, people may use the word 'logical' differently: (1) pertaining to logic or (2) logically correct. And so, your incorre...

.

You said that I nitpick. I don't. But then you turn around and incorrectly nitpick!

I responded exactly regarding the post of mine that you referred to.

Oh, please! Talk about inane nitpicking that isn't even correct! Obviously I'm using 'grammatical' in the sense of 'conforming to the rules of grammar...

I explained it when I first flagged you on it.

But you are. Right now. Anyway, my posting is not based on whether you read or don't read.

Your argument stooped to the tactic of citing ambiguity as if we would not be discussing modulo certain ambiguities.

You skipped my point. / Morphology concerns form. And so also syntax. Especially in logic, syntax is a mater of form, hence 'well formed'. In logic, t...

I have found Merriam to be good, especially unabridged, but some deterioration over the years. I read all of yours. I mentioned the others for emphasi...

That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether that law of thought can be broken. Yes it can. Of course, if we hold that it is required for rationa...

People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely. But your...

Which brings me back to my point that is sustained:

I can't believe you stooped to such a sophomoric argument. Obviously, we consider a context in which we at least agree as to the kind of word. Your ar...

The syntax is not fine. (1) 'have' should be 'has' (2) 'piink' is not a word (3) 'forhead' is not a word'. Syntax checks. Are these words? Are the wor...

No, we don't need to make any such assumption. You're just stipulating that out of thin air. We might know nothing about who or what wrote an expressi...

He doesn't.