Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:46:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5deca4d0b2a0776b85bd3a4ade3cb99690f54c51@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me> <vrmomn$b31e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmsmp$cvat$4@dont-email.me>
 <4fcdc85c3c241ccf5dae48e0812f51fcd5aee1d3@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn1p6$hpve$2@dont-email.me>
 <ead79b94d318e397648f1d43f41d6616be3392a4@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn294$hpve$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd20e0d9005a654e445500e64917832f34de1f6e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpi98$2qbhf$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:46:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1466043"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrpi98$2qbhf$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/23/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2025 10:24 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:15:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/22/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:07:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>>>> It is pretty stupid to claim that Knowledge "⊂" Truth is an example of
>>>>> fraud.
>>>>> True(X) works perfectly within the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>> expressed using language.
>>>> But not for unknown truths.
>>> Is it really that hard to understand that knowledge does not include
>>> unknowns?
>> No, but unknowns are still true.
>>
> 
> When we define the set of all general knowledge
> that can be expressed using language then we
> have the basis for creating artificial general
> intelligence.
> 

Nope, you just don't understand how AI works.

There is a computational barrier that limits how many "facts" the 
"neuron cluster" can remember based on its "size", and the computational 
requirement grow exponentially with size, so the limitation isn't how 
much "data" we can provide the system, but how well we can pre-organize 
things so it doesn't need to actually "learn" stuff.

Your problem is you just don't understand the nature of what you talk 
about, but seem to have read just the CliffsNotes version and think you 
understand the details which were never actually discussed in the 
abreviation given.

This causes you to not know what you don't know, and then your nature 
seems to assume that you can make up what every you want and just assume 
it to be true, which just makes you system broken.

Sorry, you are proven that you are totally ignorant of the basics of the 
things you talk about, and that your "arguments" are just based on the 
FRAUD of using incorrect definitions for core terms, because you think 
you are allowed to change the.