Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 16:14:08 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <47203deb6a279dab5cec175ebe146df4af82c672@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me> <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg7t8h$c823$4@dont-email.me>
 <psydnYHRoboAJbr6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vg8djc$fg4n$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d8148432a7183c5f16c2f5b3b549fb6b3edc390@i2pn2.org>
 <vg8g2v$fg4n$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 21:14:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="806643"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vg8g2v$fg4n$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5612
Lines: 86

On 11/3/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/3/24 12:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2024 11:53 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/11/2024 13:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 10:21:09 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/11/2024 08:43, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.
>>>>>>> [PO:]
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
>>>>>>>>> deception.
>>>>>>>> That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
>>>>>>>> all false statements. The statement itself does not change
>>>>>>>> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
>>>>>>>> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
>>>>>>> who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not a disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The term "lie" is to only be applied to intentionally
>>>>> deceitful statements. To apply the term "lie" to statements
>>>>> not having intentional deceit <is> itself intentional deceit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not if the person making that claim sincerely believes it. :)  You 
>>>> are being inconsistent here...
>>>
>>> Richard has said that he does not mean intentional
>>> deceit when he calls me a liar, yet uses the term
>>> "liar" anyway knowing that others will take this
>>> to mean intentional deceit. So Richard is a liar
>>> for calling me a liar.
>>>
>>
>> Because the word doesn't just mean intential deciet.
>>
>> And you are an intentional liar to say it only means that, as you have 
>> been shown the definition.
>>
> 
> Unless you always qualify you use of the term "liar" as
> {unintentional falsity} it is the kind of defamation suit
> that you will lose because the communication process always
> assumes the primary meaning of a term unless otherwise specified.

Nope, I guess you learned your law just as good as your logic,

Since a "reasonable" person will undetstand that statements that are 
clearly false under the standard mean can be considered to be lies. 
Since you present yourself as someone claiing enough knowledge of the 
field to be able to make credibale claims about what things means, when 
questioned on the meaning of your statement, and comparing them with the 
accepted meaning of the statement, you will lose all credability.

> 
> You can't even correctly say that my statements are false.
> The most that you can accurately say is that my statements
> are inconsistent with conventional opinions.

Sure I can, because your statement use terms of art with well defined 
definition that you don't follow.

This is one big difference between converstaional English, where meaning 
is based on a wide assortment of meanings under general agreement, in a 
formal system, the meaning is normally fairly precise.

While you try to claim to be wanting to work in an alternate system, the 
fact that you haven't (likely because you can't) define such an 
alternate system well enough to use it, you are stuck being in the 
system that you just misuse, which makes your statement provably false, 
and your claims of them a reckless disregarug of the truth, which is 
good enough to be of a similar class to intentional.

> 
>> IF you won't accept the truth, then you become the classical case of 
>> the pathological liar that lies because he can not tell the difference 
>> between truth and lies, and speaks with a reckless disreguard for the 
>> truth.
> 
>