Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:27:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vg8prq$hsfu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$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>
 <47203deb6a279dab5cec175ebe146df4af82c672@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 22:27:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657";
	logging-data="586238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uhy4j9lKttXszOFFeFyV2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fuDL66uzxInv80ZFF3uN0Nd1LvY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241103-6, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <47203deb6a279dab5cec175ebe146df4af82c672@i2pn2.org>

On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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. 

*That not the way it works bro. Don't bet your house on that*

> 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.
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer